Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct

On 11/10/24 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:

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is superseded and replaced by Incorrect(L,x).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".
 

But since there exist statements that are True but not Provable. except by your incorrect definition of Provable, your logic is just broken.
To try to define True as Provable means that one of the categories must be changed, and thus your logic must be less powerful.
If you reduce Truth to just what is Provable, you system has lost some truths, and likely even some that were provable before as you need to limit what can be said.
If you expand Provable to Truth, then you have lost the concept of Knowledge, that was based on Provable.