Sujet : Re: Concise rebuttal of incompleteness and undecidability
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 03. Jun 2024, 09:23:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v3jr12$3q1r6$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-06-02 17:36:57 +0000, olcott said:
Because of Quine's paper: https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html most
philosophers have been confused into believing that there is no such
thing as expressions of language that are {true on the basis of their
meaning}.
The unique contribution I have made to this is that the semantic meaning
of these expressions is always specified by other expressions. When we
can derive x or ~x by applying truth preserving operations to a set of
semantic meanings then this perfectly aligns with Wittgenstein's concise
critique of Gödel: https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
Unless P or ~P has been proved in Russell's system P has no truth value
and thus cannot be a proposition according to the law of the excluded
middle.
As Richard keeps pointing out:
Sometimes this "proof" may require an infinite sequence of steps.
The above is not a reuttal of anything. It does not even claim to
rebut anything, and does not show any counter proof of anyting.
-- Mikko