Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 2024-08-17 19:12:41 +0000, olcott said:

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.

ZFC is not an opinion, it is a thing. The abbreviation "ZFC" refers to
that particular thing. You are free to ignore it but it exists anyway.
--
Mikko