Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:That every expression of language that is {true on the basis ofOn 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Can't stipulate that something is true.On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:>>>
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.
FALSE STATEMENT.
>
Can't be false it is stipulated.
Also, stipulating a definition contrary to the system puts you out of the system.Right people really care about the Goldbach conjecture
>Nope. That is just stipulating that you system is contradictory.Some statements are true due to an infinite number of steps to ther truth-makers of the system.>
>
Already covered that.
>Nope, it just puts your logic outside of most logic systems, and unable to hamdle most of the problems people really care about.You will lead your logic system into contradictions by your definition (or you just need to treat it as a worthless phrase that doesn't actually tell you anything, particually what you call non-truth-bearers, which might actuall be statement that are true or false).>
>
Not at all. Such a system does detect and reject self-contradictory
expressions thus does not use this as any basis for incompleteness.
That is not even what those words mean.>Nope, it defines your system as self-contradictory,>>>
This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
the Goldbach conjecture can be proven *OR REFUTED* in an infinite
sequence then an algorithm can see this too. For everything
else it is an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
>
So, you ADMIT that you definition doesn't work for some statements, and thus is not correct.
>
It detects expressions that require infinite steps as out
of scope and correctly determines all of the rest.
as things like tht GoldBach conjecture are defined as BOTH non-truth-bearers, and as truth-bearers.That my system handles all knowledge that can be expressed
That seems to be the lie for your logic, that you just allow yourself to be wrong at times, which makes your logic worthless.
>But it might not need an infinite number of steps to refute it.Note, the algorithm can not tell wether the statement like to Goldback conjecture is true or not, or even if it takes an infinite number of steps to come to that answer. Thus, you statement is just a FALSEHOOD.Not at all. Because it is dead obvious to humans that Goldbach
>
can be proved or refuted in an infinite number of steps an
algorithm can see this too.
And that second definition contradicts your first, as the first defines Goldmach (if true) to be a non-truth-bearer, while the second tries to contradict that to say it is.That is not even what those words mean.
You can't do that in two different statements.An accurate model of the actual world already has
>Since both of those statements are based on EMPERICAL evidence, they are outside the scope of analytical logic.You just don't understand logic well enough to understand that can't have definitions that just don't work as the basis of a system.>
>
By your definition, the Goldbach conjecture must currently be consider a non-truth-bearer, but we KNOW that it must be either true or false, we
It would be construed as out-of-scope.
Whether or not there was evidence of:
(a) Election fraud that could have possibly changed
the outcome of the 2020 presidential election or
(b) Very harmful climate change caused by humans
would be in scope.
out-of-scope is not at all the same thing as inconsistent.>Nope, becuase you made you system inconsistent by defining infinitly established truths to be both non-truth-bearers and truth-bearers.just don't know which, so you definition of a truth-bearer is just a lie.>
>
What you are defining are KNOWLEDGE bearers, statements that there truth can be known.
The key problem that it solves is that it makes True(L,x)
computable for all of the most important things that really
matter.
It can handle ALL knowledge that can be expressed using language.>Nope, but it can't be said to be a cure for ALL cancers.
You are essentially saying that
A cure for cancer is totally useless because it only cures
99.99% of cancers.
That is where you run into the problem, trying to say that things that must be correct for ALL inputs, are allowed to only be correct for many inputs.The entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.