Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- philosophy of logic -- Newspeak

On 3/1/25 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/1/25 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:

>
The bottom line here is that expressions that do not have
a truth-maker are always untrue. Logic screws this up by
overriding the common meaning of terms with incompatible
meanings. Provable(common) means has a truth-maker.
>
>
>

>
But the problem is you try to make statements that have been shown to have a truth-make untrue, because you don't understand the conneciton to the truth-maker.
>

>
Your complete ignorance of the philosophy of logic has
never been my ignorance of logic. Logic says carefully
memorize the rules and do not violate these rules.
>
Philosophy of logic says: What happens when we totally
change these rules in many different ways?
>
Do we get a different result when we totally change all
of these rules?
>
What if unprovable meant untrue?
Would that get rid of undecidability?
>
>
>

>
And thus you admit that NONE of your statement applies to the fields they apply to,

>
Philosophy of logic corrects the issues with logic.
When we retain the original meanings of the terms
then provable(common) is the truth-maker for true(common).
>
It is only the weird idiomatic divergence from these common
meanings of common terms using terms-of-the-art meanings
that enables incompleteness(math) and undecidability(logic)
to exist.
>
>

>
And the Philosophy of Logic has no power of the Logic System that define themselfs. Your problem is it seems you don't even understand the Philosophy of Logic, because you can't even use it correctly.
>

 When we try the different options that Philosophy of Logic
allows and thus do not assume that the fallible humans
that created modern logic were infallible and all knowing
and thus the rules of logic that they derived are not the
infallible word-of-God then

Nope. Show me the actual Truth-makers of your statement

 we can easily get rid of both undecidability and incompleteness
by retaining the original provable(common) is the truth-maker
for true(common).

Nope, because you don't seem to understand that to "show" something, it needs to be finite.

 Wittgenstein also knew this: bottom of page 6
 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
 undecidability and incompleteness are merely an artifact
of overriding provable(common) and True(common) with
incompatible idiomatic term-of-the-art meanings.
 *This is the same sort of idea as newspeak*
Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified
grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's
ability for critical thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
 

Nope, you arre just proving your stupidity, and just admitting that everything you have said has been just a lie, as you were never really trying to work in the logic system you claimed to have refuted the statements in,
You are so stupid, you can't understand your stupidity, or that you statements are just an admission of that stupidity,