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

On 7/8/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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
>

Merely an assertion entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.

OF course there can.
You haven't show ANY steps of how you get to your conclusion, so of course I can't point out which one is wrong. because you have given ZERO ground for it, just your INCORRECT claim of what truth means.
A clear example is Godel's G. It is shown with an infinite number of steps in F, as we can check each Natural Number individually (all countably infinite number of them), with each check taking a finite number of steps. Each of these tests will show that that given Natural Number n fails to pass the given Primative Recursive Relationship, so we have a path of infinite length that establishes it.
There can NOT be a finite length path of truth preserving steps that show show that no such number exists, as any such path could be encoded into a number that satisfies that Primative Recursive Relationship. Thus there can not be a finite proof of it.
Also, the statement can not be false, as if it was false, then there, by definition, WOULD be a number that satisfies the relationship, but by the structure of that relationship, and such number becomes a proof that NO such number exists.

 

>
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.
>

Insults do not count as supporting reasoning.
You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.
 

>
?- 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.

Prolog shows that there is a cycle in the directed graph
of its evaluation sequence proving that the expression is
cannot possibly be resolved in any logic system.

And all that proves is that PROLOG can't handle that class of logic.
Since it doesn't even handle all of first order logic, that isn't surprizing.

 You can either comprehend this or fail to comprehend
to, disagreement is error.
 

Oh, I understand the meaning of it, but I don't think you do. If you try to express higher order logic to Prolog, you introduce cycles that are not actually there.

>
You have been told that many times in the past,

 Stupid people came to believe a lie like Trump's "big lie"
when it is repeated over and over. I am not stupid.

And stupdi people belive the lie that H is correct in deciding a halting computation can somehow be correctly decided as non-halting.

 

and you continued falling back to such statements just shows how stupid you are,

 It proves that you stubbornly refuse to learn the truth.

No, YOU refuse to learn the truth. Youy statements are not true, and have no actual basis. This is clear because you are unable to actually form a real proof of anything you say.

 

 and that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.

 You condemn yourself to Hell by saying this, repent before its
too late.
 

Nope, since I haven't lied, but you have, and worse, so you seem to have an express ticket to there.