Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theory
Date : 21. Apr 2024, 16:44:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said:
>
When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>
Such three valued logic has the problem that a tautology of the
ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be true. For
example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This means that
some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and
you need to accept the possibility that a theory that is complete
in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic.
>
>
I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. Whenever an
expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then it is
rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical operations. It
is basically invalid input.
 You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. Therefore you
don't need any teaching device.
 
That is too close to ad homimen.
If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the error
in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad teacher
is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your opinion of
me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning.

As you make the syntax of your language dependent on semantics
you lose one of the greatest advantage of formal languages:
the simplicity of determination whether a string is a well formed
formula.
 
Not at all. By combining them together we can simultaneously determine
syntactic and semantic correctness. By keeping them separate we have
misconstrued expressions that are not even propositions as propositions
that prove incompleteness and undecidability.
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity. Propositions are also often characterized as
being the kind of thing that declarative sentences denote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Apr 24 * Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2277olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2220Richard Damon
18 Apr 24 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2219olcott
19 Apr 24 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2218Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2217olcott
19 Apr 24 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2216Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V227olcott
19 Apr 24 i    i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V25Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V24olcott
19 Apr 24 i    ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V23Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i    i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--21olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--19olcott
21 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
22 Apr 24 i    i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--16Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i   +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
23 Apr 24 i    i   i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i   i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i   i  `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--11olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i     +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i     i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i     i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i     i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i     i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i     i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Ross Finlayson
27 Apr 24 i    i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1olcott
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--186olcott
20 Apr 24 i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
20 Apr 24 i     i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--182olcott
20 Apr 24 i      +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i      i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
21 Apr 24 i      i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--178olcott
22 Apr 24 i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--177olcott
24 Apr 24 i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--176olcott
25 Apr 24 i         +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--171Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--170olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--10Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--9olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--8Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--7olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--6Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i    `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Ross Finlayson
25 Apr 24 i         i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--159olcott
26 Apr 24 i         i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i         i  +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--139olcott
26 Apr 24 i         i  i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--138Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i         i  i `* D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does137olcott
26 Apr 24 i         i  i  +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does1Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i  `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does135olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i   `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does134Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i    `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does133olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i     `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does132Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i      `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does131olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i       `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does130Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i        +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does1olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i        +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does1olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i        `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3127olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i         `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3126Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i          `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3125olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i           `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3124Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i            `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3123olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             +* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V319Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i`* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V318olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V317Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i  `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V316olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i   `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V315Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i    `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V314olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i     `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V313Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i      `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V312olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i       `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V311Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i        `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V310olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i         `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V39Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i          `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V38olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i           `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V37Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i            `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V36olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i             `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V35Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i              `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V34olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i               `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V33Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i                `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V32olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i                 `- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V31Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3103olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i              +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V31Richard Damon
29 Apr 24 i         i  i              `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3101olcott
29 Apr 24 i         i  i               +* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V399Mikko
29 Apr 24 i         i  i               i`* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V398olcott
30 Apr 24 i         i  i               `- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V31Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--18olcott
25 Apr 24 i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--4olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V254olcott
18 Apr 24 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal