Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 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 their>
meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
finite strings.
>
You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>
actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
Which you don't seem to understand what that means.>Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>
strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
preserving operations to these axioms.
Nope, you don't understand actual context and only look at oversimplifications.You also don't seem to understand the requirements of "Context" when applying the meaning of the words.Sure I do. What I do not do is allow a wide range of subjective
>
interpretation. {The cow is dead} cannot be interpreted as
{The cow is running around} WITHOUT LYING.
But that isn't the definition of "Meaning of the words".For instance, in Computation Theory, the only simulation that can be used to determine behavior are non-aborted simulations, so that is the only sort of simulation actually considered to be a normal simulation.My ideas can be directly derived from the foundational truths that
>
I listed above pertaining to relations between finite strings.
Nope, you have blown up your logic system by injecting false ideas into it by your ignoring context and mixing up definitons from different fields.Of course, that blows up your ideas.Only to those that refuse to go through all of the steps and
insist on leaping to conclusions anchored only on the rote
memorization of conventional wisdom.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.