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

On 3/2/2025 11:19 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/2/2025 12:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 11:11 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/2/2025 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 11:00 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/2/2025 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/2/2025 10:28 AM, dbush wrote:>>> So how does changing the definition of truth prevent systems from

existing that contain true statements that have *only* an infinite connection to their truthmaker?

>
*This <is> how actual truth has always worked*
>
If expression X has a connection to a truth-maker then
X is true otherwise X is untrue, yet possibly not false.
It does not matter what kind of connection this is.
>
>

>
You didn't answer the question.
>

>
Sure I did
 >> It does not matter what kind of connection this is.
>
It does not matter whether the connection is infinite
or not so STFU about it.
>
>
>

>
Dishonest dodge.
>
You stated that your definition of truth prevents systems from existing that contain true statements that have *only* an infinite connection to their truthmaker.
>
So how does that happen?

>
I never said anything like that.
>

 Yes you did:
 On 3/1/2025 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Incompleteness cannot possibly exist when true means
 > has a truth-maker and untrue means has no truth-maker
 > and false mean ~X has a truth-maker.

Your paraphrase of that was terribly incorrect.
Has a truth-maker has always been the only correct
way to determine True(x) superseding and replacing
the ill-formed notion of provability.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer