Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the necessaery references in it.
>

Not at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\

>
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
>
Your rules are just inconsistent.
>

>
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.

>
And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it becomes inconsistant.
>

>
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
>

>
So, what value does True(LP) return?
>

>
True(L,x)  means x is true.
~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a proposition.
>
True(L,~x) means x is false.
~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a proposition.
>
True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
is not a proposition.

>
And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is false, then x being the negation of that result is a true statement.
>

*That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
~True(L, x)  means x is either false or not a proposition
~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
>
Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
>
It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
~true is false or incorrect.
~false is true or incorrect.
>

>
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
>
what value does True(L, x) have?
>

>
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.

>
But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
>

 No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.

So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and ~~P doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
IF you do mean this, then you first need to fully define how "incorrect" works in ALL the logical operators.
It also means you need to figure out what you logic system supports, and can't just rely on the large base of work on normal binary logic.
Thare is a good aount of work on non-binary systems, and perhaps you can find one that is close enough to try to use, but YOU need to do that work.
And realize that you system isn't applicable to any theorem based on a binary logic system, since your system is not one.

 

>
We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
>

>
And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy.
>

 Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.

 

Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can't affect the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
>

When x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
proving that x is not a proposition.

But, since ~false isn't true, your system leaks information like crazy.

 Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
not a proposition?
 

You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is you have wasted too much time on your other projects to do anything with this, and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies so no one is going to look at this.
>

Try and show how "a fish" is true or false.
 

Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if you can work out the problems, it might have made an viable alternate form of logic, but we will never know since you killed it by lying about halting and incompleteness and Tarski.

 I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
It seems that you are trying to say that "a fish" must be true or false.
 

Nope, but in Tarski's logic, which is BINARY (so doesn't apply to your TRINARY system you need to complete your definition of) True(L, "a fish) would be false.