Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 2/9/2025 11:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the requirements of a predicate, so you are just admitting that the required predicate doesn't exist.On 2/9/25 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed itOn 2/9/2025 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:>On 08/02/2025 16:51, Ross Finlayson wrote:>On 02/08/2025 07:32 AM, olcott wrote:>>(2) Semantics is fully integrated into every expression of
language with each unique natural language sense meaning
of a word having its own GUID.
Illusion and the tyranny of delusion, ad nauseam.
>>And I am finishing the job. I may have only one month left.
The cancer treatment that I will have next month has a 5% chance
of killing me and a 1% chance of ruining my brain. It also has
about a 70% chance of giving me at least two more years of life.
Food be your medicine, medicine be your food. Conversely,
good luck with any of that.
>Instead of just usual model theory and axiomatics>
and "what's true in the logical theory", "what's
not falsified in the scientific theory", you can
have a theory where the quantity is truth, and
then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas, then the Liar
"paradox" is only a prototype of a fallacy,
Rather, then there is no such thing as a "fallacy", only
flat positivism and Newspeak. Indeed, Popper already is
yet another bad joke at best, but WTF would you know...
>
In other words you did not understand what he said thus
replied to his words with nonsense gibberish pure rhetoric
with no actual basis in reasoning.
>
>> there's a Comenius language of it that only
>> truisms are well-formed formulas
>
True(L,x) <is> a mathematical mapping from finite string
expressions of language through a truthmaker to finite
strings expressions providing formalized semantic meanings
making the expression true.
>
The prototype of a fallacy that he referred to is the
recursive structure of pathological self-reference that
never resolves to a truth value.
And, such a mapping can't exist if the language allows references like:
>
x is defined to be !True(L, x)
>
>> there's a Comenius language of it that only
>> truisms are well-formed formulas
Then the above expression is simply rejected as notAnd you thus admit that you logic doesn't meed the requirement for the proof.
a WFF of this Comenius language.
Which isn't an allowed operation for a predicate, Like True, in Formal Logic.As such a statement can't be mapped to True or False without also mapping True to False or False to True.The Comenius language expresses the key essence of the most
>
Note, he shows that such a statement CAN be formed in logic system with certain minimal properties, like being able to express the Natural Numbers and their properties.
>
So, I guess you are admitting that to you "logic" can't handle something like mathematics.
>
important aspect of my idea, rejecting expressions that do
not evaluate to Boolean as ill-formed. It only has TRUE
and ill-formed. My system has TRUE, FALSE and ill-formed.
All undecidable propositions fall into the ill-formed category
and logic is otherwise essentially unchanged.
>>We live in a yellow submarine, just yellower and yellower.>
>
-Julio
>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.