Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/16/24 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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"

>
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
>
>

>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally reformulate logic.
>

>
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.
>

 I guess you haven't read the papers of Zermelo and Fraenkel. They created a new definition of what a set was,