Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.

On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true.
>

>
bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow colored elephant in my living room right now.

>
Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there exists a universe where that is true.
>

>
iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some
physically existing or conception thing makes X true.

 Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to make them true.
 A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size.
 

No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
acyclic graph.
When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
point out your specific mistake.
The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
deep yet zero actual cycles.

>
There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the
field that make that same stupid mistake.
>
>

 But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, where you are making a similar stupid mistake.
 

I have given this thirty years.
You have given this a few minutes.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer