Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

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

On 8/18/2024 5:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-17 16:51:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/17/2024 11:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Yes, the ROOT was that change, but you don't understand that if they JUST did that root, and not the other work, Set theory would not have been "fixed", as it still wouldn't have been usable.
>

>
Defining that no set can be a member of itself would seem
to do the trick.

>
It doesn't if there is another axiom that says or impies that the is a set
that contains itself, or if several axioms together imply that. If someting
provably exists then it exists even if you can prove that it does not
exist.
>

 Sure. The formal system must be consistent.
 

And if just adding the rule makes it inconsistant, then you can't just add the rule.
Consistency can't be enforced by an axiom or rule, it is a property of your combination of axioms and rule.