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

On 2/28/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-25 21:10:10 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/25/2025 9:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-24 21:44:10 +0000, olcott said:

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.

Why should any logic permit formulas that are not truth-bearers?
(Of course, term expressions are not truth-bearers.)

Undecidable expressions are only undecidable because they are not
truth bearers. Logic ignores this and faults the system and not the
expression

An undecidable expression is a truth bearer.

It is a very stupid idea to have provable outside of the system to mean
true in the system. That G is provable in meta-math does not make G true
in math.