Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Tarski

On 2/9/25 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/9/2025 11:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/9/25 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/9/2025 1:18 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 08/02/2025 16:51, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/08/2025 07:32 AM, olcott wrote:

>

(2) Semantics is fully integrated into every expression of
language with each unique natural language sense meaning
of a word having its own GUID.

>
Illusion and the tyranny of delusion, ad nauseam.
>

And I am finishing the job. I may have only one month left.
The cancer treatment that I will have next month has a 5% chance
of killing me and a 1% chance of ruining my brain. It also has
about a 70% chance of giving me at least two more years of life.

>
Food be your medicine, medicine be your food.  Conversely,
good luck with any of that.
>

Instead of just usual model theory and axiomatics
and "what's true in the logical theory", "what's
not falsified in the scientific theory", you can
have a theory where the quantity is truth, and
then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas, then the Liar
"paradox" is only a prototype of a fallacy,

>
Rather, then there is no such thing as a "fallacy", only
flat positivism and Newspeak.  Indeed, Popper already is
yet another bad joke at best, but WTF would you know...
>

>
In other words you did not understand what he said thus
replied to his words with nonsense gibberish pure rhetoric
with no actual basis in reasoning.
>
 >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
 >> truisms are well-formed formulas
>
True(L,x) <is> a mathematical mapping from finite string
expressions of language through a truthmaker to finite
strings expressions providing formalized semantic meanings
making the expression true.
>
The prototype of a fallacy that he referred to is the
recursive structure of pathological self-reference that
never resolves to a truth value.

>
And, such a mapping can't exist if the language allows references like:
>
x is defined to be !True(L, x)
>

 When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it
 >> there's a Comenius language of it that only
 >> truisms are well-formed formulas
 Then the above expression is simply rejected as not
a WFF of this Comenius language.
 

As such a statement can't be mapped to True or False without also mapping True to False or False to True.
>
Note, he shows that such a statement CAN be formed in logic system with certain minimal properties, like being able to express the Natural Numbers and their properties.
>
So, I guess you are admitting that to you "logic" can't handle something like mathematics.
>

 The Comenius language expresses the key essence of the most
important aspect of my idea, rejecting expressions that do
not evaluate to Boolean as ill-formed. It only has TRUE
and ill-formed. My system has TRUE, FALSE and ill-formed.
 All undecidable propositions fall into the ill-formed category
and logic is otherwise essentially unchanged.
 

>

We live in a yellow submarine, just yellower and yellower.
>
-Julio
>

>
>

>

 

Refuted to sci.logic.
Ignoring your own follow-ups just shows you don't have a sense of integrity in your body.
You are nothing but an IGNORANT PATHOLOGICAL LYING FRAUD that has no idea at all of what he is talking about.
Refu