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

On 7/5/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.

>
FALSE STATEMENT.
>

>
Can't be false it is stipulated.

>
Can't stipulate that something is true.
>

 That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.

But that isn't what you said above. You keep on getting your lies mixed up.
True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formal system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" the meaning assigned to the term in the system.

 Sometimes in cases (having little actual consequence) this
may require an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.

No, "verbal meaniing" isn't a recoginized term in formal system. Terms have definitions, and statements are evaluated by the grammer of the sytstem, NOT "Natural Lanugage".

 

Also, stipulating a definition contrary to the system puts you out of the system.
>

>

Some statements are true due to an infinite number of steps to ther truth-makers of the system.
>

>
Already covered that.

>
Nope. That is just stipulating that you system is contradictory.
>

>

You will lead your logic system into contradictions by your definition (or you just need to treat it as a worthless phrase that doesn't actually tell you anything, particually what you call non-truth-bearers, which might actuall be statement that are true or false).
>

>
Not at all. Such a system does detect and reject self-contradictory
expressions thus does not use this as any basis for incompleteness.

>
Nope, it just puts your logic outside of most logic systems, and unable to hamdle most of the problems people really care about.
>

 Right people really care about the Goldbach conjecture
infinite more than avoiding Fascism or the death of
the planet.

Irrelevent, and you are just showing you don't really understand how logic works.

 

>

>
This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
the Goldbach conjecture can be proven *OR REFUTED* in an infinite
sequence then an algorithm can see this too. For everything
else it is an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
>

>
So, you ADMIT that you definition doesn't work for some statements, and thus is not correct.
>

>
It detects expressions that require infinite steps as out
of scope and correctly determines all of the rest.

>
Nope, it defines your system as self-contradictory,

 That is not even what those words mean.

Of course is does, your system definition contradicts itself, as it defines the Goldbach conjecture as both a non-truth-bearer and as a truth-bearer.

 

as things like tht GoldBach conjecture are defined as BOTH non-truth-bearers, and as truth-bearers.
>
That seems to be the lie for your logic, that you just allow yourself to be wrong at times, which makes your logic worthless.
>

>

Note, the algorithm can not tell wether the statement like to Goldback conjecture is true or not, or even if it takes an infinite number of steps to come to that answer. Thus, you statement is just a FALSEHOOD.
>

Not at all. Because it is dead obvious to humans that Goldbach
can be proved or refuted in an infinite number of steps an
algorithm can see this too.

>
But it might not need an infinite number of steps to refute it.
>

That my system handles all knowledge that can be expressed
using language is enough.
 

Nope, Putting all knowledge into a bucket and says "there it is" doesn't actualy do anything.

And that second definition contradicts your first, as the first defines Goldmach (if true) to be a non-truth-bearer, while the second tries to contradict that to say it is.
>

That is not even what those words mean.

Then what else does your words mean.
By your first definition, since we don't have a finite proof or refuatation of GoldBach's conjecture, it must be a non-truth-bearer. That definition allows no other possibility.
By your second, since it is clear that it will be either true or false after we test ever even number, it must be a truth-bearer.
The first rule didn't state an exception for the second rule, so don't unsay itself.
You just don't understand how logic works.

 

You can't do that in two different statements.
>

>

You just don't understand logic well enough to understand that can't have definitions that just don't work as the basis of a system.
>
By your definition, the Goldbach conjecture must currently be consider a non-truth-bearer, but we KNOW that it must be either true or false, we

>
It would be construed as out-of-scope.
Whether or not there was evidence of:
(a) Election fraud that could have possibly changed
the outcome of the 2020 presidential election or
(b) Very harmful climate change caused by humans
would be in scope.

>
Since both of those statements are based on EMPERICAL evidence, they are outside the scope of analytical logic.
>

 An accurate model of the actual world already has
them encoded in language.

But no such "accurate model" exists.
Quoting an emperical result doesn't make it an analytic truth.
You just don't understand how logic works.

 

>

just don't know which, so you definition of a truth-bearer is just a lie.
>
What you are defining are KNOWLEDGE bearers, statements that there truth can be known.

>
The key problem that it solves is that it makes True(L,x)
computable for all of the most important things that really
matter.

>
Nope, becuase you made you system inconsistent by defining infinitly established truths to be both non-truth-bearers and truth-bearers.
>

 out-of-scope is not at all the same thing as inconsistent.

Nope, you system is inconsistant as it ACCEPTED the GoldBach conjecture, and then defined it to be both a non-truth-bearer but not having a finite proof or refutation, and as truth-bearer, as it is clear that after doing the infinite tests, and answer will be found.
It *IS* inconsistant.

 

>
You are essentially saying that
A cure for cancer is totally useless because it only cures
99.99% of cancers.

>
Nope, but it can't be said to be a cure for ALL cancers.
>

It can handle ALL knowledge that can be expressed using language.

So?

 

That is where you run into the problem, trying to say that things that must be correct for ALL inputs, are allowed to only be correct for many inputs.
>

The entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language.
 

So? If we already know it, what good is that?
It can't sy anything about truths that we don't yet know. (at least nothing that can't be determined by the systems you steal the knowledge from).