Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure

On 7/7/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can return or not?
>

>
*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))
>

>
In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't undertand how logic works.
>

>
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
>

>
Word salad.
>
No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust.
>
You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to have studied a bit of.

>
Formal logic is a subset of this.

>
Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.
>
That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is why you can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of proof is one of the big differences.
>

Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g
>

>
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory
>
(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined

>
In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2) are NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the work.
>

 It does not matter how Tarski derived the self-contradictory
expression it only matters that all such expressions cannot
possibly be propositions.

Yes, it does.
First, it is NOT "self-contradictory", that is just your lie based on WROMG definitions, that by repeating it, you just prove yourself to be an ignorant pathological liar.
Second, If the statement has been PROVEN from "true" statements, then if it actually being contradictory says that something actually assumed in the proof is incorrect.
Fortunately, the statement isn't contradictory.

 When a proof is done correctly it must be a sequence of truth
preserving operations or it it wrong.

Right, and to show it is wrong you need to point out the step that is incorrect, not just that you don't like the answer.

 

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no counter to his statement.
>

 *self-contradictory expressions must be rejected*

But it isn't self-contradictory, except when you apply your incorrect definitions. That shows YOUR definitions are wrong and must be rejected.

 

>
There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x
>

>
Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations (a proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite) sequence of truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true statement).
>
This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving operations to x are infinite in length.
>

 There cannot be any infinite sequence of truth preserving operations
affirming operations that no finite sequence of truth preserving
operations exists in this case.

Wrong. And

 When there is a cycle in the directed graph of an evaluation sequence
of an expression (unlike the proving the Goldbach conjecture) there
is zero progress toward the goal.

But who says there is such a cycle?
You are just showing your stupidity.

 ?- LP = not(true_(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
 

That Prolog can't handle it does not mean it isn't true.
You have been told that many times in the past, and you continued falling back to such statements just shows how stupid you are, and that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.