Sujet : Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 10. Nov 2024, 23:01:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vgrafl$j1e0$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/10/2024 2:39 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:07:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/10/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/10/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/10/2024 4:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 4:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Sorry, but until you actually and formally fully define your logic
system, you can't start using it.
When C is a necessary consequence of the Haskell Curry elementary
theorems of L (Thus stipulated to be true in L) then and only then is C
is True in L.
This simple change does get rid of incompleteness because Incomplete(L)
is superseded and replaced by Incorrect(L,x).
I still can’t see how this makes ~C provable.
If C is not provable it is merely rejected as incorrect
not used as any basis to determine that L is incomplete.
For many reasons: "A sequence of truth preserving operations"
is a much better term than the term "provable".
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct
Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct