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

On 2/24/25 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

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 "~".
>

>
That none of modern logic can handle expressions
that are not truth bearers is their error and
short-coming. That they assume that every expression
is a truth bearer is there stupid mistake.

 WHo says they can't?
 

You just don't understand how logic actually works.
 

>

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.
>

>
>