Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/19/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-18 11:47:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/18/2024 5:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-17 14:45:45 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/17/2024 9:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>

No, you said that "ALL THEY DID" was that, and that is just a LIE.
>
They developed a full formal system.
>

>
They did nothing besides change the definition of
a set and the result of this was a new formal system.

>
Yes they did. They did show that the new system is similar enough to
the old systems to be called "set theory" and sufficiently useful.
>

>
They redefined the notion of a set in set theory and that
by itself got rid of Russell's Paradox. Mostly this disallows
a set to be a member of itself.

>
The new notion is restricted to their new system. The general informal
notion of "set" is unaffected. Some sets, e.q. Quine's atom that
contains itself and nothing else is not a set in Zermelo's theory
but is an example of a set according to the general notion.
>

I redefine the notion of formal system in math and logic
and this by itself gets rids of undecidability. Mostly this
rejects self-contradictory expressions.

>
Math and logic are not formal systems that could be replaced with
other formal systems. The notion of formal system cannot be redefined.
You can construct a new formal system where formal system is formally
defined but that definition has no consequences outside that syatem.
>

 I am doing the same sort of thing that ZFC did to conquer
RP and my end result is that undecidability ceases to exist.