Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct

On 11/12/24 11:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/11/2024 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/10/24 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/10/2024 2:39 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:07:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/10/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/10/24 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/10/2024 4:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 4:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/2024 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

Sorry, but until you actually and formally fully define your logic
system, you can't start using it.

When C is a necessary consequence of the Haskell Curry elementary
theorems of L (Thus stipulated to be true in L) then and only then is C
is True in L.
This simple change does get rid of incompleteness because Incomplete(L)
is superseded and replaced by Incorrect(L,x).

I still can’t see how this makes ~C provable.
>

>
If C is not provable it is merely rejected as incorrect
not used as any basis to determine that L is incomplete.
>
For many reasons: "A sequence of truth preserving operations"
is a much better term than the term "provable".
>

>
But since there exist statements that are True but not Provable. except by your incorrect definition of Provable, your logic is just broken.
>

 There cannot possibly be any expressions of language that
are true in L that are not determined to be true on the
basis of applying a sequence of truth preserving operations
in L to Haskell_Curry_Elementary_Theorems in L.
 

Right, but there can be expressions of language that are true in L by an INFINITE sequence of truth-preserving operations that are not provable which needs a FINITE sequence of truth-preserving operations.
INFINITE is not FINITE so there is a difference.

https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Everything that is true on the basis of its meaning
expressed in language is shown to be true this exact
same way.
 

But not provable.
Truth allows infinite sequences.
Provable does.
Trying to Define Olcott-Provable to allow infinite sequences, doesn't make actual Provable allow it.
It is just a LIE to use mis-defined terms in your logic, and that shows that you fundamentally don't understand what you are talking about.