On 7/7/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/7/2024 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
>
what value does True(L, x) have?
>
>
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.
>
But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
>
>
No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
>
So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and ~~P doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
>
>
It is something like tri-valued logic.
>
It needs to either BE tri-valued, or be bi-valued, or be whatever number of values it is.
>
True, False and IDK would be trivalued logic.
True, False and not-a-logic-sentence is not actually trivalued logic.
Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can return or not?
If ANY of your predicates can return that value, it must be a truth-value and you have tri-valued logic.
If not, WHICH values (of true, false) are True(L, x) and ~True(L, x) when x is ~True(L, x), and ~True(L, x) must match the general rule for ~ on the value of True(L,x)
You can't be having slipper definition for your logic system.
>
Every other formal system would try to force "a fish" into
true or false and if that didn't work determine that the
formal system is incomplete.
>
Nope, most formal system just don't define "a fish" as a statement in their langauge.
>
I use that example because it is easy to see that it is
neither true nor false. It literally applies to any formal
system as expressive as English.
But few logic system try to be as expressive as English. That is almost contrary to the goals of a Formal System.
You don't seem to understand how Formal Systems work, or what they are for.
>
IF you do mean this, then you first need to fully define how "incorrect" works in ALL the logical operators.
>
>
(~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)) ≡ ~Proposition(L,x)
Every variable is screened this way before any other
operations can be performed upon it.
x = "a fish" rejects every expression referencing x.
>
Logic doesn't work that way.
>
That is its error.
No, that is YOUR error.
If you want to totally start over, go ahead, but it sounds like you don't have much time since you wasted the last 20 years.
Sorry, you are just totally ignorant of how formal logic works.
>
Not at all formal logic is wrong because it does not do this.
Nope, YOU are wrong because you want Formal Logic to be something it isn't
If you want something else, go ahead and try to invent it. Your problem is you don't have much time after wasting the last 20 years on using your tools wrong.
>
It also means you need to figure out what you logic system supports, and can't just rely on the large base of work on normal binary logic.
>
>
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
>
Nope, doesm't work that way. The problem is that most formal systems don't express them selves with "Natural Language".
>
That formal systems are not typically very expressive
is by no means any evidence at all that they cannot be as
expressive as English.
They can be VERY expressive, they just avoid the ambiguity of natural language.
The problem isn't that English is "expresive" but that English can express too many meanings in a single sentence.
And an "accurate model of the actual world" isn't available, so you are hypothocating on a non-existant thing.
>
That is always the way that new things come into existence.
Nope. Most new things are actually refinements in some way on the old, perhaps with a new twist.
They tend not to assume the impossible.
>
>
Thare is a good aount of work on non-binary systems, and perhaps you can find one that is close enough to try to use, but YOU need to do that work.
>
>
In other words it is too difficult for you to understand
that "a fish" is not a proposition?
>
Nope, YOU are the one that says it is one, and needs to be handled.
>
What formal logic system do you think you are working in?
>
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
Not part of formal logic. You just don't know what you are talking about.
Since there is not "accurate model of the actual world" your concept is built on a LIE.
>
And realize that you system isn't applicable to any theorem based on a binary logic system, since your system is not one.
>
>
All of the current systems of logic inherit their notion of
True(L,x) on the above basis.
(~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g)) ≡ ~Proposition(PA,g)
Mathematical incompleteness goes away.
>
>
Nope, you just made your system inconsistant if it was powerful enough to express as a proposition in it that x in PA is ~True(PA, x).
>
Not at all. Must system consistently rejects expressions
that are neither true nor false.
They reject them by not letting them into the system.
Not by letting them in and then expelling them.
Tarski shows a set of commonly held conditions that are sufficent to allow that expression to be a proposition in PA.
>
Tarski stupidly allowed nonsense into his system.
No, he showed that the standard principles that are normally used, when combined with the UNNEEDED True predicate, producded the nonsense.
The choice was easy, we don't need a universal Truth Predicate, but we do want things like mathematics.
Just as Godel does in a different manner by constructing his Primative Recursive Relationship that detects a proof of his statement G.
>
>
>
We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
>
>
And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy.
>
>
Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.
>
>
>
>
Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can't affect the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
>
When x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
proving that x is not a proposition.
>
But, since ~false isn't true, your system leaks information like crazy.
>
Not at all
(~True(L,x) ∧ True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_False(L,x)
(True(L,x) ~Proposition(L,x) ~True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_True(L,x)
>
Once all of the variables have been screened out for
~Proposition(L,x) then all of the conventional operations
that are truth preserving can be applied to them.
Expressions such as (x ∧ ~x) are reduced to false.
>
>
But you don't get to "screen out" statments like that.
>
It is self-evidently correct that they must be screened out
otherwise things such as the Liar Paradox give you the false
impression that knowledge has no truth predicate.
Because there IS no "Truth Predicate" per the definition.
We can show MANY statements to be true or false, but the need to be able to know if EVERY statement to be True or False comes at too great of a cost.
You just don't understand the structure of logic.
>
>
Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
not a proposition?
>
You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is you have wasted too much time on your other projects to do anything with this, and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies so no one is going to look at this.
>
Try and show how "a fish" is true or false.
>
Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if you can work out the problems, it might have made an viable alternate form of logic, but we will never know since you killed it by lying about halting and incompleteness and Tarski.
>
I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
It seems that you are trying to say that "a fish" must be true or false.
>
>
Nope, but in Tarski's logic, which is BINARY (so doesn't apply to your TRINARY system you need to complete your definition of) True(L, "a fish) would be false.
>
>
Tarski simply stupidly fails to reject erroneous propositions.
He falsely imagines that they don't exist. If "a fish" could
be encoded in his Tarski theory he would stupidly conclude that
this proves that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist.
>
>
Nope, he showed that this "erroneous proposition" is one that MUST be a valid proposition given a few basic requirements on the logic system,
A few basic incorrect requirements such as stipulating that lies are always true.
Who did that? I don't think you understand what he is saying.
But then, you are the one that belives in nonsense arguments as being valid, since you said you could disproe Godle with a Diagonalization proof, and then when asked what it was, you said they were all just nonsense, thus admitting you use nonsense in your logic.
and the existance of the Predicate True(L, x) that returned true for all x that are true, and false for all x that are false or non-truth-bearing.
Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise
Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise