Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Ultimate Foundation of Truth

On 2025-02-22 18:42:44 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/22/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-22 04:44:35 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 2/21/2025 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/21/25 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/20/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-18 03:59:08 +0000, olcott said:

 

Tarski anchored his whole proof in the Liar Paradox.
 

 By showing that given the necessary prerequisites, The equivalent of the Liar Paradox was a statement that the Truth Predicate had to be able to handle, which it can't.
 

 It can be easily handled as ~True(LP) & ~True(~LP), Tarski just
didn't think it through.

 No, it can't. Tarski requires that True be a predicate, i.e, a truth
valued function of one term.

 It does not matter a whit what the Hell his misconceptions
required.

It is not required by any misconception. It is required by the
meanings of the words and symbols, in particular "predicare"
and "~".

We simply toss his whole mess out the window and
reformulate a computable Truth predicate that works correctly.

You have not formulated a computable predicate and apparently
never will, even if we don't care whther it works correctly.
--
Mikko