Sujet : Re: Analytic Truth-makers
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 24. Jul 2024, 01:25:38
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v7phm2$1dv95$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/23/2024 3:57 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Since generations logicians have called sentences
which you clumsily call "not a truth-bearer",
simple called "undecidable" sentences.
That is the same as calling a dead-cow a cow that does
not run very fast. It it terribly deceptive to overload
terms of the art with meaning having nothing to do with
their base meaning.
A theory is incomplete, if it has undecidable
sentences. There is a small difference between
unprovable and undecidable.
If an expression of language is WRONG then we can't
correctly blame the system for being incomplete.
An unprovable senetence A is only a sentence with:
~True(L, A).
An undecidable sentence A is a sentence with:
~True(L, A) & ~True(L, ~A)
The problem with this is that self-contradictory sentences
are WRONG. Blaming the formal system for being "incomplete"
is stupid.
Meaning the sentence itself and its complement
are both unprovable.
"This sentence is not true" IS WRONG.
olcott schrieb:
~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)
means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.
It does not mean that L is incomplete
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Analytic Truth-makers
Re: ""self contradictory"" (Was: Analytic Truth-makers)