Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said:Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine
>Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems.
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.
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 thereTry to show a concrete example of that where self-contradictory
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 withoutBecause it establishes the notion of truth.
reference to truth. Is there any such definiton?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.