Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable

On 8/19/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/19/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-18 11:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
People have different opions about which meaning is the "base"
meaning.
>

 The most commonly used sense meaning at the first
index in the dictionary.

Which depends on the dictionary, so a meaningless definition.

 

For example a liar must be intentionally deceptive not merely mistaken.

>
For example people may regard you as a liar if you say something untrue
when you were too lazy to check the facts.
>

 I am redefining the foundations of logic thus my definitions
are stipulated to override and supersede the original definitions.
It took a long time to reverse-engineer the subtle nuances of
the exact details of what needed to be changed.
 It took me two years just to define the term {analytic true}
so that is became a semantic tautology. For the prior years
to that most everyone simply disbelieved that there actually
was an {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
 

And thus you need to first fully build the foundation, by FORMALLY defining with precisely defined words, the FULL set of axioms that you base foundation will use.
THEN you need to build something on it to show what it can (or can't) do. Ideally, take it forward to the point of having a system of similar power to the systems of the theorys you are complaining about are built on.
That is a lot of work, so you better get to it, but first you might want to learn how the existing systems are actually build so you understand what you need to do. My guess is you might have something worth showing is maybe 20 years or so. To bad you wasted all that time doing it the wrong way.