Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/18/24 7:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/18/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-17 15:47:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/17/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/17/24 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/17/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
I guess you consider all the papers they wrote describing the effects of their definitions "nothing"
>

>
Not at all and you know this.
One change had many effects yet was still one change.
>

>
But would mean nothing without showing the affects of that change.
>

>
Yet again with your imprecise use of words.
When any tiniest portion of the meaning of an expression
has been defined this teeny tiny piece of the definition
makes this expression not pure random gibberish.
>
Meaningless does not mean has less meaning, it is
an idiom for having zero meaning.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/meaningless

>
You are lying. According to that page the word "meaningless"
has two meanings. The other is 'having no real importance or value'.
>

 OK. I always use the base meaning of a term as its only meaning.
That makes things much simpler if everyone knows this standard.
 For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely mistaken.
The architectural overview of an idea is of great value.
 The new predicate True(L,x) and how it works is the architectural
overview of my redefinition of formal system.
 

Except when you want a different meaning.
For instance, "Correct" means "free from error" or done totally right, and thus a "Correct Simulation" must not stop until it finishes.
But that isn't the definition you want to use.