Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Tarski

On 2/9/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/9/2025 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/9/25 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/9/2025 5:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/9/25 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/9/2025 11:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/9/25 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/9/2025 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 08/02/2025 16:51, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/08/2025 07:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>

(2) Semantics is fully integrated into every expression of
language with each unique natural language sense meaning
of a word having its own GUID.

>
Illusion and the tyranny of delusion, ad nauseam.
>

And I am finishing the job. I may have only one month left.
The cancer treatment that I will have next month has a 5% chance
of killing me and a 1% chance of ruining my brain. It also has
about a 70% chance of giving me at least two more years of life.

>
Food be your medicine, medicine be your food.  Conversely,
good luck with any of that.
>

Instead of just usual model theory and axiomatics
and "what's true in the logical theory", "what's
not falsified in the scientific theory", you can
have a theory where the quantity is truth, and
then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas, then the Liar
"paradox" is only a prototype of a fallacy,

>
Rather, then there is no such thing as a "fallacy", only
flat positivism and Newspeak.  Indeed, Popper already is
yet another bad joke at best, but WTF would you know...
>

>
In other words you did not understand what he said thus
replied to his words with nonsense gibberish pure rhetoric
with no actual basis in reasoning.
>
 >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
 >> truisms are well-formed formulas
>
True(L,x) <is> a mathematical mapping from finite string
expressions of language through a truthmaker to finite
strings expressions providing formalized semantic meanings
making the expression true.
>
The prototype of a fallacy that he referred to is the
recursive structure of pathological self-reference that
never resolves to a truth value.

>
And, such a mapping can't exist if the language allows references like:
>
x is defined to be !True(L, x)
>

>
When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it
 >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
 >> truisms are well-formed formulas

>
And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the requirements of a predicate,

>
Not at all. True(L,x) is no longer baffled by semantically
incorrect expressions and rejects them as IFF ill-formed-formula.
>

>
>
So, what does True(L, x) say for an x defined as !True(L, x)
>
All answers are just wrong.
>

 *The simplest way for you to understand this is*
 On 2/8/2025 9:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
 > then there's a Comenius language of it that only
 > truisms are well-formed formulas...
 In the Comenius language: x := ~True(L,x)
is rejected as an ill-formed-formula.
Ross really did boil down the essence much more succinctly.
 

So, what is the answer? What answer does True(L, x) return?
Parroting words by Rote that you do not understand is just futile, and proves you don't understand the problem.
Note, it is also a sign of intentional Fraud to keep on puting YOUR replies to more places than you indicate that replies should go.
If you think both places are appropriate, don't limit follow up.
If you think discussion should be in one place, respect your own followups.
You are just proving that you don't respect the truth or other people, but think you must be "special".
Yes, special as in needing to travel in the "special ed bus" because you are incapable of dealing with the real world.
Note, I respect those that have a ligitement need for special education, because most of those people are doing their best to do what they can.
You have intentionally made yourself stupid, and that isn't an excuse, you are just a damned LYING FRAUD.