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

On 11/14/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 5:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/14/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/14/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-13 23:01:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/13/2024 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-12 23:17:20 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/10/2024 2:36 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/10/2024 1:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

I have addressed your point perfectly well.  Gödel's theorem is correct,
therefore you are wrong.  What part of that don't you understand?

>

YOU FAIL TO SHOW THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS DOES
NOT GET RID OF INCOMPLETENESS.

>
The details are unimportant.  Gödel's theorem is correct.  Your ideas
contradict that theorem.  Therefore your ideas are incorrect. Again, the
precise details are unimportant, and you wouldn't understand them
anyway.  Your ideas are as coherent as 2 + 2 = 5.
>

>
Incomplete(L) ≡  ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))

>
That's correct (although T is usually used instead of L).
Per this definition the first order group theory and the first order
Peano arithmetic are incomplete.

>
Every language that can by any means express self-contradiction
incorrectly shows that its formal system is incomplete.

>
That "incorrectly shows" is non-sense. A language does not show,
incorrectly or otherwise. A proof shows but not incorrectly. But
for a proof you need a theory, i.e. more than just a language.
>
That a theory can't prove something is usually not provable in the
theory itself but usually needs be proven in another theory, one
that can be interpreted as a metatheory.
>

>
*So in other words you just don't get it*
When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving
operations then you necessarily end up with truth.
>
>

>
Right, but that truth might not be PROVABLE (by a finite proof that establishes Knowledge) as Truth is allowed to be established by infinite chains.
>

 All of analytic truth is specified as relations between
expressions of language. When these relations do not exist
neither does the truth of these expressions.

But in FORMAL LOGIC, that analytic Truth is specified as the axioms of the system, and the approved logical operations for the system.
You confuse "Formal Logic" with "Philosophy" due to your ignorance of them.

 I am looking at this on the basis of how truth itself
actually works. You are looking at this on the basis
of memorized dogma.
 

No, because you logic is based on LIES, because you are trying to redefine fundamental terms within the system, as opposed to doiing the work to make a system the way you want, likely because you are just to ignorant to do the work,
Sorry, but you are doing a very good job of showing your utter ignorance of the fields that you are trying to talk about.