Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.

>
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
>

>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
>

I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.

>
That does not justify lying.
>

>
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
>
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
>

>
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
>
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.

>
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
>

>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.

>
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
>

>
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.

 If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.
 

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
Thus understanding the compositional meaning of my words is
complete proof that they are true.
{Expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning
expressed in this same language} perfects the delineation of the
{analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
In various formal systems including the formal system of the formalized
verbal model of the actual world W expression x is only true in W iff
there are a sequence of truth preserving operations from the axioms of
W to x. Otherwise x is untrue in W.  When x and ~x are untrue in formal
system F then x is not a truth-bearer in F.

The notion of undecidability is not going anywhere. Some useful
theories are so obviously incomplete that the concept is and
will remain useful.
 

My above idea is epistemological. Simply ignoring
epistemology does not make it go away.

 Your idea will be forgotten unless you can show somthing
interesting about it.
 

Showing the the notion of undecidability a misconception is not
interesting? Proving the means to implement the True(L,x) predicate
that Tarski "proved" is impossible is not interesting? My goal
to accomplish the latter requires the former. An algorithm that
can divide truth from lies in real time.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer