Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- eternal september failure

On 7/8/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can return or not?
>

>
*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))
>

>
In other words, you have no idea of how to express you concept in the terms of how a logic would be built with it, as you just don't undertand how logic works.
>

>
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. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
>

>
Word salad.
>
No such model exists, so you are basing your system on faery dust.
>
You just don't understand what you are talking about, and think Formal Logic is just like the abstract philosophy you seemed to have studied a bit of.

>
Formal logic is a subset of this.

>
Nope. Uses different (and stricter) rules.
>
That you don't understand this just shows your ignorance, and is why you can't actually PROVE anything because the standard of proof is one of the big differences.
>

Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g
>

>
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
self-contradictory
>
(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined

>
In other words, you don't understand his PROOF, Note (1) and (2) are NOT "assumptions" but statements of facts from ealier in the work.
>

>
It does not matter how Tarski derived the self-contradictory
expression it only matters that all such expressions cannot
possibly be propositions.

>
Yes, it does.
>
First, it is NOT "self-contradictory", that is just your lie based on WROMG definitions, that by repeating it, you just prove yourself to be an ignorant pathological liar.
>
Second, If the statement has been PROVEN from "true" statements, then if it actually being contradictory says that something actually assumed in the proof is incorrect.
>
Fortunately, the statement isn't contradictory.
>

>
When a proof is done correctly it must be a sequence of truth
preserving operations or it it wrong.

>
Right, and to show it is wrong you need to point out the step that is incorrect, not just that you don't like the answer.
>

>

If you can't find the erroneous step to get them, you have no counter to his statement.
>

>
*self-contradictory expressions must be rejected*

>
But it isn't self-contradictory, except when you apply your incorrect definitions. That shows YOUR definitions are wrong and must be rejected.
>

>

>
There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
operations in Tarski's theory to x
>

>
Nope, there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations (a proof) to x if and only if there are a (possibly infinite) sequence of truth perserving operations to x (meaning it is a true statement).
>
This is possible if the only sequences of truth preserving operations to x are infinite in length.
>

>
There cannot be any infinite sequence of truth preserving operations
affirming operations that no finite sequence of truth preserving
operations exists in this case.

>
Wrong. And
>

Merely an assertion entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
You cannot show the steps of how I am wrong because I am correct.

 OF course there can.
 You haven't show ANY steps of how you get to your conclusion, so of course I can't point out which one is wrong. because you have given ZERO ground for it, just your INCORRECT claim of what truth means.
 A clear example is Godel's G.