Sujet : Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 13. Nov 2024, 17:44:16
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vh2l10$29o46$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/13/2024 5:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/12/24 11:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/11/2024 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/10/24 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/10/2024 2:39 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:07:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/10/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/10/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/10/2024 4:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
Sorry, but until you actually and formally fully define your logic
system, you can't start using it.
When C is a necessary consequence of the Haskell Curry elementary
theorems of L (Thus stipulated to be true in L) then and only then is C
is True in L.
This simple change does get rid of incompleteness because Incomplete(L)
is superseded and replaced by Incorrect(L,x).
I still can’t see how this makes ~C provable.
>
>
If C is not provable it is merely rejected as incorrect
not used as any basis to determine that L is incomplete.
>
For many reasons: "A sequence of truth preserving operations"
is a much better term than the term "provable".
>
>
But since there exist statements that are True but not Provable. except by your incorrect definition of Provable, your logic is just broken.
>
>
There cannot possibly be any expressions of language that
are true in L that are not determined to be true on the
basis of applying a sequence of truth preserving operations
in L to Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems in L.
>
Right, but there can be expressions of language that are true in L by an INFINITE sequence of truth-preserving operations that are not provable which needs a FINITE sequence of truth-preserving operations.
If it is impossible to show that x is true in L and impossible
to show that ~x is true in L then x in not a truth bearer in L
and L is by no means in any way incomplete.
x = "This sentence is not true"
True(English, x) == false. True(English, ~x) == false.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer