Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer

On 2024-08-20 13:45:13 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/20/2024 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-19 12:58:12 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/19/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-18 11:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

 I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects of their definitions "nothing"
 

 Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
 

 But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
 

 Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
 Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless

 You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
 

 OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.

 People have different opions about which meaning is the "base"
meaning.
 

 The most commonly used sense meaning at the first
index in the dictionary.

 If you want to use this you should say so and specify the dictionary
in the beginning of your opus. You shold not choose a dictionary
that presents obsolete and archaic meanings first.
 

 Base meaning as in the meaning in a knowledge ontology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
basis that all other sense meanings inherit from.

That page does not define "base meaning".
You will not be understood if you use a private language.
Responses to your messages probably use Common Language. Where you
understand it or not, most readers do, at least to some extent, or
ask clarification and then understand.

For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely mistaken.

 For example people may regard you as a liar if you say something untrue
when you were too lazy to check the facts.

 I am redefining the foundations of logic thus my definitions
are stipulated to override and supersede the original definitions.

 If you want to use definitions other that the first meaning given
by the dictionary, you must present the definition before the
first use in each opus that uses it.

 The key term that I am slightly adapting is the term {analytic}
from the analytic synthetic distinction. That is why the
title of this post says Analytic(Olcott)
 

It took a long time to reverse-engineer the subtle nuances of
the exact details of what needed to be changed.

 It seems that you have not yet completed that task.

 I have competed the architecture of the task.
We cannot move on to further elaboration until
people quite rejecting the architecture out-of-hand.

If you cannot move on you will never complete.

*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language.

No, it does not. It will always be useful. THe newspeek of 1984 does
not work in the real world.

Unless expression x has a connection (through a sequence
of true preserving operations) in system F to its semantic
meanings expressed in language L of F then x is simply
untrue in F.
 Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
undecidable in F

--
Mikko