Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 7/5/24 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:It takes many revisions to precisely state my intuitions.On 7/5/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Then ADMIT an error rather then say someone else is wrong because you didn't say what you meant.On 7/5/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:I am fallible so the first time that I say somethingOn 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:>On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>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.
Can't stipulate that something is true.
>
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.
But that isn't what you said above. You keep on getting your lies mixed up.
>
it will probably not be infallible.
It is a notion of God as an ordinary human that also was the>And that Gnosticism is just a heresy that is inconsistent, and thus not true.True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formal system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" the meaning assigned to the term in the system.Se that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
>
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible?
You simply did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.>No, only if you restrict the language it can use. For instance, On the basis of natural language Cats are Cats is a statement that is true by the meaning of the words, as it Blurgs are Blurgs. But in a system that doesn't define Cats, or Blurgs (like basic mathematics) there is not possible connection by truth preserving operations to the any meaning since it uses undefined terms in the system.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis
of its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection
by truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language} is a tautology.
You keep om forgetting that formal systems are not defined in terms of natural language, so you can't use natural language definition to work with them.I didn't forget. Later on I fill in more details. When I
The whole purpose of my two decades of primary research on this>But that isn't what Tarski was talking about.
This refutes Tarski undefinability for the entire set of
knowledge that can be expressed using language.
After all, you STILL can't give a consitant value for the expression True(L, x) for x defined in L as ~True(L,x).
Clearly our language allows us to define an x that way, and whatever value True(L,x) is defined (either True or False) it becomes a contradiction.The primary purpose of my two decades worth of primary research
There is no sequence of truth preserving operations>And why not? what is the value of True(L,x) from above?
It sure as Hell does not get confused by any pathological
expressions that refer to themselves such as the key
expression that attempt to refute truthmaker maximalism:
This sentence has no truthmaker
It can be sufficiently complete have all the details that>and can't be an completely accurate model of the actual world, as we don't know enough about it.
The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.