Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct

On 11/9/2024 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 5:01 AM, joes wrote:

On 11/8/24 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:

>

That formal systems that only apply truth preserving operations
to expressions of their formal language that have been
stipulated to be true cannot possibly be undecidable is proven
to be over-your-head on the basis that you have no actual
reasoning as a rebuttal.

Gödel showed otherwise.

>

That is counter-factual within my precise specification.

>
That's untrue - you don't have a precise specification.  And even if you
did, Gödel's theorem would still hold.
>

When truth is only derived by starting with
truth and applying truth preserving operations
then unprovable in PA becomes untrue in PA.

>
No.  Unprovable will remain.
>

 *Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
*Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*
*Like I said you don't pay f-cking attention*

 Unprovable(L,x) means Untrue(L,x)
Unprovable(L,~x) means Unfalse(L,x)
~True(L,x) ^ ~True(L, ~x) means ~Truth-Bearer(L,x)
 

Everyone is so sure that whatever I say must be wrong
that they don't pay any f-cking attention to what I say.
The above paragraph <is> infallibly correct.

>
Garbage.  When you spout objectively wrong stuff, people don't need to
look at the details to know it's wrong.  Wrong is wrong.  Gödel's theorem
is just as correct as 2 + 2 = 4 is.
>
[ .... ]
>

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>