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

On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/20/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/20/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

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)

 Which, as I pointed out elswhere, basically means you aren't actually talking about formal systems, as they don't have that distinction, because there is no sense based truth to be synthetic.
 

  Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True
means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be
consistently defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
 *The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that*
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.

Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems.
Your definition is not expressible in F, at least not as a definition.
A problem with your method is that it is ofen not known whether there
is a sequence of truth-preserving transformations in F and there is
no method to find out.
Your definition also requires truth-preserving is defined without
reference to truth. Is there any such definiton?
--
Mikko