Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

On 7/6/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the necessaery references in it.
>

Not at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\

>
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
>
Your rules are just inconsistent.
>

>
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.

>
And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it becomes inconsistant.
>

>
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
>

>
So, what value does True(LP) return?
>

>
True(L,x)  means x is true.
~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a proposition.
>
True(L,~x) means x is false.
~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a proposition.
>
True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
is not a proposition.

>
And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is false, then x being the negation of that result is a true statement.
>

*That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
~True(L, x)  means x is either false or not a proposition
~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
 Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
 It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
~true is false or incorrect.
~false is true or incorrect.
 

So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
what value does True(L, x) have?
it seems you just are too stupid to even understand the question.
I am not asking you to quote your rules, but apply them.
Then if that is what True(L,x) is, what does that make the truth value of the statemet x be since x is defined as ~True(L, x) using that above value for True(L, x).
And how do you explain the conflict when you then look at that value and what True said?
It seems, you are just too stupid to know how to even apply your logic, or maybe it just is unable to BE applied, becuase it is so broken.