Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/18/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:

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

On 2024-08-16 20:39:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/16/2024 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 7:02 AM, olcott wrote:

>
*This abolishes the notion of undecidability*
As with all math and logic we have expressions of language
that are true on the basis of their meaning expressed
in this same language. Unless expression x has a connection
(through a sequence of true preserving operations) in system
F to its semantic meanings expressed in language L of F
x is simply untrue in F.

>
But you clearly don't understand the meaning of "undecidability"

>
Not at all. I am doing the same sort thing that ZFC
did to conquer Russell's Paradox.
>
>

>
If you want to do that, you need to start at the basics are totally reformulate logic.
>

>
ZFC didn't need to do that. All they had to do is
redefine the notion of a set so that it was no longer
incoherent.

>
As the notion of set is the all what a set theory is about,
a redefinition of the notion of a set is means Zermelo started
from square one and built an entirely new formal system.
>

 The key functional difference was the result of few changes
and everything else stayed the same. Besides defeating RP
what was another functional result?
 My notion does the same thing. Slight changes to the notion
of a formal system gets rid of undecidability. The biggest
unexplored change is moving from logical operations to truth
preserving operations.
 Here is the one case that I know: (P ∧ ~P) ↔ FALSE
 

So, are you saying that in your system, P and ~P might both be true at once? In other words, you system ALLOWS itself to be contradictory?
Note, classical logic does NOT say that FALSE -> (P ∧ ~P), so I don't know where you get ↔
It does say that if A -> B, and A is false, that B can have any truth value (including not a truth value) and the implication is valid or "true".
But of course, an implication where the premise is know to be false doesn't let you determine anything, so that results is innocuous.