Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:What matters is that you are not talking about those things as theyOn 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpretedOn 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. OnlyOn 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:I don't need to know anything about what he was talking aboutOn 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:You don't understand what Quite was talking about,On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of theThe entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of theirYou do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
finite strings.
actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
I understand this much more deeply than you do.Which you don't seem to understand what that means.You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
preserving operations to these axioms.
a shallow understanding can be valid.
ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
"theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
where all axioms are true.
talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
to these finite string.
This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.It shouod be exactly equivalent.
It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence ofInfinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
inference steps may sometimes be required.
It is also not exactly the same because some proofs are not restrictedA sequence of inferences that can derive a false conclusion from true
to truth preserving operations.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.