Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/17/2024 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 3:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 2:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
In other words, you are just admitting you don't understand how logic works.
>
If you CHANGE an existing axiom, everything that depended on that axiom needs to be re-verified.
>
If you ADD a new axiom, it doesn't affect ANY argument that doesn't try to use it, and thus doesn't affect Russel's Paradox.

>
OK.
>
I add the definition for the True(L, x) predicate
and every instance of the notion of True changes
in every formal mathematical logic system.
>

>
But either that changes what that instance means,

>
When I stipulate what True(L,x) means then that is done.
It does not go on and in any circle endlessly redefining itself.

>
Nope. You can say for YOUR usage, what you mean by True(L,x). You can't force others to use that,

>
Likewise ZFC is a mere opinion that most everyone chooses to ignore.

>
No, it isn't an "opinion", it is a set of definitions, and the logic system that comes out of them.
>
People are of course allowed to choose which ever set theory they want to use, but if they choose to use Naive Set Theory, they have the problem that it is known to be inconsistant, and thus any "proof" they build is suspect.
>
They can also shoose some other Set theory  Theory, maybe even just ZF, or to one of the derived theorys like Morse-Kelly, or to something different like one of the New Foundations Systems. The key is you tend to need to specify if you differ from ZFC which is generally considered the default.
>
You seem to be having trouble with the words you are using.
>

>
Not that. I am taking the hypothetical extreme position
to see where you set your own boundaries on this.

 Which just means you don't know what you words mean.
 

I wanted to see what you thought the words mean.
You did come up with a good answer.

ZFC isn't an "Opinion", meaning a personal idea about an issue, but is a definition of a possible Set Theory. You could assume they have an opinion that is it a GOOD definition for Set Theory, but that is irrelevent.
 They never claimed that it was the ONLY Set Theory, just that it was *A* Set Theory that provides a good basis for the field.
 

They may have only claimed that yet they did more.
They corrected the incoherence of naive set theory.

So, I don't see where your "possition" makes any sense, but just shows a total misunderstanding of what you are talking about.
 

>

>

or reinterprete what others have said or proven based on you stipulation, in fact, by stipulating that definition, anythig that uses any other definition of it becomes out of bounds for your argument.
>

>
Everything in logic the depended on some notion of True is
changed. Any logic operations that were not truth preserving
are discarded. The notion of valid inference is also changed
because it was not truth preserving.
>

>
And needs to be reproved to see if it is still true.
>
>

When a conclusion is not a necessary consequence of all of its
premises then the argument is invalid.
>

>
Right, so YOUR argument here is invalid.
>

>
It is proven totally true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of its words. Math conventions to the contrary
simply ignore this.
>

>
Nope. You are just proving by the meaning of the words that you are totally ignorant of how logic works.
>
Sorry, but that is the facts.
>

>
Logic is currently defined to work contrary to the way that
truth itself actually works. No logician ever noticed this
because testing the coherence of basic principles of logic
is outside of the scope of logicians.

 That may be YOUR OPINION, but "Truth" (in logic) is actualy a DEFINED TERM.
 

It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined term.

>
They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>

 No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are just incoherent.
 

It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.

Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, not unlike your own.
 

It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer