Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable --- truth-bearer

On 8/21/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-20 13:45:13 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/20/2024 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-19 12:58:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
If you want to use this you should say so and specify the dictionary
in the beginning of your opus. You shold not choose a dictionary
that presents obsolete and archaic meanings first.
>

>
Base meaning as in the meaning in a knowledge ontology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
basis that all other sense meanings inherit from.

 That page does not define "base meaning".
 You will not be understood if you use a private language.
Responses to your messages probably use Common Language. Where you
understand it or not, most readers do, at least to some extent, or
ask clarification and then understand.
 

*The defined predicate True(L,x) here*
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 then x is simply
untrue in F.
Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
undecidable in F.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer