Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/18/24 7:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/18/2024 5:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-17 17:22:14 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/17/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
But usable, until integrated into a Formal Logic system.
>

>
No. Just tacking it on at the end of set theory gets rid of RP.

>
You needn't. It is provable in naive set theory that no set can be
a member of itself. The problem is that in naive set theory you can
also prove that there is a set that is a member of itself. Adding
new definitions or axioms don't affect either proof. In order to
remove a proof you must remove an axiom.
>

 I accept whatever process of fully integrating the
change that Richard said.
 

THEN DO IT!
Note, it WILL require a lot of work, and a lot of knowledge of how the logic system you are going to try to replaces works, so you can figure out what axioms created the problem you want to change.
it WILL require FORMALLY rederiving all the theory of logic, but you have the advantage that much of it may be copyable from the formal system if the change really is as small as you think.
More likely you are going to find that some important rule can't exist in  your system, or that you can't get the results that you want, as "undecidablility" is a fundamental property of logic systems that get powerful enough.