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

On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

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some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer valid and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.

>
No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of discussion so
you are a legitimate topic of discussion.
>
I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or otherwise.
>

>
If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is wrong with
the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is essentially
an as hominem attack.

 You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills that
happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings
here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you don't.
 

You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher.
None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much understanding
of the link between proof theory and computability. When I refer to
rejecting an invalid input math would seem to construe this as nonsense,
where as computability theory would totally understand.
The closest link between computability and math seems to be type
theory. Math people can understand that an epistemological antinomy
(AKA expression of language that cannot possibly be true or false)
is not a proposition:
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
It seems that they should also understand that formal bivalent
mathematical systems only deal with propositions. No one here
seems to understand that.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer