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

On 2024-08-31 12:18:20 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/31/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-30 14:45:32 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/30/2024 8:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-29 13:36:00 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/29/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-28 12:14:47 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/28/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-24 03:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/23/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-22 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/22/2024 7:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

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

 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.
 

 Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine
the foundation of all formal systems.

 You cannot redefine the foundation of all formal systems. Every formal
system has the foundation it has and that cannot be changed. Formal
systems are eternal and immutable.
 

 Then According to your reasoning ZFC is wrong because
it is not allowed to redefine the foundation of set
theory.

 It did not redefine anything. It is just another theory. It is called
a set theory because its terms have many similarities to Cnator's sets.

 It <is> the correct set theory. Naive set theory
is tossed out on its ass for being WRONG.

 There is no basis to say that ZF is more or less correct than ZFC.

 A set containing itself has always been incoherent in its
isomorphism to the concrete instance of a can of soup so
totally containing itself that it has no outside surface.
The above words are my own unique creation.

 There is no need for an isomorphism between a set an a can of soup.
There is nothing inherently incoherent in Quine's atom. Some set
theories allow it, some don't. Cantor's theory does not say either
way.
 

 Quine atoms (named after Willard Van Orman Quine) are sets that only contain themselves, that is, sets that satisfy the formula x = {x}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms
 Wrongo. This is exactly isomorphic to the incoherent notion of a
can of soup so totally containing itself that it has no outside
boundary.

 As I already said, that isomorphism is not needed. It is not useful.

 It proves incoherence at a deeper level.

No, it does not. If you want to get an incoherence proven you need
to prove it yourself.

Prior to my isomorphism we only have Russell's Paradox to show
that there is a problem with Naive set theory.

Which is sufficicient for that purpose.

That these kind of paradoxes are not understood to
mean incoherence in the system has allowed the issue

What system? They are understood to indicate inconsistency of
the naive set theory and similar theories.

of undecidability to remain open.

What is "open" in the "issue" of undecidability?

The Liar Paradox is isomorphic to a set containing itself:
Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) yet we still
construe the Liar Paradox as legitimate.

Is there someting illegitimate in
"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are
always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." (St. Paul: Titus 1:12) ?

Anyway, nice to see that you don't disagree with may observation that
Quines atom is not inherently incoherent.

Even ZFC sees that it is incoherent.

How does ZFC "see" that?

Quine seemed to be a bit of a knucklehead. He was too dumb to
understand that analytic/synthetic distinction even when Carnap
spelled it out for him: ∀x (Bachelor(x) := ~Married(x))

What makes you think Quine did not understand the distinction,
or that Carnap's understanding was better?
Anyway, non of the above shows thar the particular isomorphism
mentioned in quoted messages be needed or userful, only that
you think it is.
--
Mikko