Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-13 12:43:16 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/13/2024 6:24 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-12 13:44:33 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/12/2024 1:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-10 10:52:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/10/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-09 15:29:18 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/9/2024 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-08 16:01:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
It does seem that he is all hung up on not understanding
how the synonymity of bachelor and unmarried works.

>
What in the synonymity, other than the synonymity itself,
would be relevant to Quine's topic?
>

>
He mentions it 98 times in his paper
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
I haven't looked at it in years.
>

I don't really give a rat's ass what he said all that matters
to me is that I have defined expressions of language that are
{true on the basis of their meaning expressed in language}
so that I have analytic(Olcott) to make my other points.

>
That does not justify lying.
>

>
I never lie. Sometimes I make mistakes.
It looks like you only want to dodge the actual
topic with any distraction that you can find.
>
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
>

>
Expressions of language that are {true on the basis of
their meaning expressed in this same language} defines
analytic(Olcott) that overcomes any objections that
anyone can possibly have about the analytic/synthetic
distinction.
>
This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable or the
expression is simply untrue because it lacks a truthmaker.

>
No, it doesn't. An algrithm or at least a proof of existence of an
algrithm makes something computable. You  can't compute if you con't
know how. The truth makeker of computability is an algorithm.
>

>
There is either a sequence of truth preserving operations from
the set of expressions stipulated to be true (AKA the verbal
model of the actual world) to x or x is simply untrue. This is
how the Liar Paradox is best refuted.

>
Nice to see that you con't disagree.
>

>
When the idea that I presented is fully understood
it abolishes the whole notion of undecidability.

>
If you can't prove atl least that you have an interesting idea
nobody is going to stody it enough to understood.

>
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition
is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

>
Self-evident propositions are uninteresting.
>

 *This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.

But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability", so using the wrong definition of it proves nothing.
Note, by your definition, you accept that Godel's G, it True in PA, as its expression is connected through an INFINITE sequence of truth preserving operations to the axioms of PA, which are true by the meaning of the words.
Also, by your definition, you accept that Gode;'s G is NOT "provable" in PA, as it can be shown that there is no FINITE sequence of truth preserving operations to the aximos of PA.
Thus, by the definition of "Incompleteness", being that the system has at least one statement that it True in it, but can not be proven by it.
A statement is undecidable if we can not prove it to be true or false IN THAT SYSTEM, but it IS true or false in that system. Since G can be shown to be True in PA, because there IS an infinite sequence of steps in PA that establish it, and this is provable in MM to be true, and we can also show (with a proof in MM) that no finite sequence to prove it exists in PA, or disprove it in PA (since you can not disprove a true statement without making the system inconsistant), it says that G is an "undecidable" problem in PA, and thus PA is incomplete.
Your failure to understand just shows your utter ignorance of the subject.

 

Thus understanding the compositional meaning of my words is
complete proof that they are true.

>
Often your intended compositional meanings seem to differ from the
real compositional meanings as defined by dictionaries, grammar
books, and native speakers' intuitions.
>
Epistemology is not relevant to the clarity communication. Grammar
of Common Language, including compositional semantics, is.
>

 This is how compositional semantics is formalized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
 

Which says nothing to support your claim. The statement of G is obvioulsy within the "domain of Discourse of PA. Thus Ontology doesn't reject the statement from PA, it will just recognize that not all statements in a domain are knowable.