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

On 8/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/23/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-22 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/22/2024 7:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True
means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be
consistently defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>
*The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that*
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.

>
Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems.
Your definition is not expressible in F, at least not as a definition.
>

>
Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine
the foundation of all formal systems.

>
You cannot redefine the foundation of all formal systems. Every formal
system has the foundation it has and that cannot be changed. Formal
systems are eternal and immutable.
>

 Then According to your reasoning ZFC is wrong because
it is not allowed to redefine the foundation of set
theory.
 

No, it defined a NEW form of set theory, and new formal systems adopted it, it didn't even try to change anything that was based on any other form of set theory.
It is correct that if it would try to force itself into old formal system based on Naive Set Theory, that would be an incorreect application, but those system were already proven to be broken, so there was no need to even try that.
This seems beyond your understanding that there is a difference between creating a new system, and changing the old system.
You can still try to define your own logic system, and show what it can do and see if anyone wants to try to use it. That just requires you to go through the work to formally FULLY define your system and formally show what it can do.
It is of course a lot less work to try to change an existing system, but the problem is that it just doesn't work.
That fact that you can't see the difference just proves that you are unqualified to make such a change, like the unlicensed electrician that fixes the fuse that keeps on blowing by putting a penny behind it.