1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise --- Olcott caught in

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jul 8 22:11:19 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/8/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

    Formal logic is a subset of this.
    Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g))
    There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g


    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

    Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
    self-contradictory

    (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined >>>>>>
    There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
    theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
    operations in Tarski's theory to x


    There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
    that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory

    Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no such
    thing.

    As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.


    The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
    (if it is true) continues to find more true
    cases than it had before, thus makes progress
    towards its never ending goal (if its true).

    or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.

    "Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.


    The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
    towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.

    Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't
    me that there is no path.


    The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
    LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
    towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
    see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.

    Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the
    field that Traski assumes.


    ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
    LP = not(true(LP)).
    ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
    false.

    LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
    00 ~ 01
    01 ⊢ 01, 00
    02 L

    The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
    an infinite loop that make no progress
    towards the goal of evaluating LP as
    true or false.



    So?

    Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.

    You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are
    talking about.

    Every expression of language that cannot be proven
    or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
    truth preserving operations connecting it to its
    meaning specified as a finite expression of language
    is rejected.


    So?

    Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite sequence
    of truth preserving operations.


    Liar?


    What lie?

    I guess you have confused yourself and lost your train of thought (which
    I think is just N gauge)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jul 8 22:58:45 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/8/24 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

    Formal logic is a subset of this.
    Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g)) >>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g >>>>>>>>>

    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

    Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
    self-contradictory

    (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined >>>>>>>>
    There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
    theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
    operations in Tarski's theory to x


    There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
    that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory

    Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no
    such thing.

    As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.


    The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
    (if it is true) continues to find more true
    cases than it had before, thus makes progress
    towards its never ending goal (if its true).

    or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.

    "Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.


    The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
    towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.

    Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't >>>>>> me that there is no path.


    The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
    LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
    towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
    see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.

    Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the
    field that Traski assumes.


    ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
    LP = not(true(LP)).
    ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
    false.

    LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
    00 ~ 01
    01 ⊢ 01, 00
    02 L

    The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
    an infinite loop that make no progress
    towards the goal of evaluating LP as
    true or false.



    So?

    Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.

    You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are
    talking about.

    Every expression of language that cannot be proven
    or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
    truth preserving operations connecting it to its
    meaning specified as a finite expression of language
    is rejected.


    So?

    Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite
    sequence of truth preserving operations.


    Liar?


    What lie?

    I guess you have confused yourself and lost your train of thought
    (which I think is just N gauge)

    Maybe the actual problem is that your ADD is much worse than I thought.

    You know that infinite proofs never determine knowledge AND claim
    that infinite proofs determine knowledge.




    You just can't keep your facts straight.

    When did I ever say that we got knowledge from an infinite proof?

    (Show statement or you are just admitting to making another lie)

    That is just another of your "Diagonalization" claims that shows how
    much of a liar you are.

    Infinte series of truth perserving operations establish truth, but not knowledge. It makes the thing true but we can't know it unless we can
    find a short-cut in some meta (Like we do with Godel's G).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jul 8 22:59:02 2024
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/8/24 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/8/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 7/8/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/7/2024 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/7/2024 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

    Formal logic is a subset of this.
    Not-a-logic-sentence(PA,g) ≡ (~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g)) >>>>>>>>> There are no truth preserving operations in PA to g or to ~g >>>>>>>>>

    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

    Within my analytical framework this Tarski sentence is merely
    self-contradictory

    (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined >>>>>>>>
    There are no truth preserving operations in Tarski's
    theory to x if and only if There are truth preserving
    operations in Tarski's theory to x


    There cannot possibly be an infinite proof that proves
    that there is no finite proof of Tarski x in Tarski's theory

    Who says there needs to be a infinite proof, since there is no
    such thing.

    As I said, one example of such an x is Godel's G.


    The infinite proof of the Goldbach conjecture
    (if it is true) continues to find more true
    cases than it had before, thus makes progress
    towards its never ending goal (if its true).

    or, it continue to show that there is no counter examples.

    "Progress" on an infinite path isn't really measurable.


    The cycles in the following two cases never make any progress
    towards any goal they are merely stuck in infinite loops.

    Which just means you are on the wrong path. One wrong path doesn't >>>>>> me that there is no path.


    The Prolog unify_with_occurs_check test means that
    LP is stuck in an infinite loop that makes no progress
    towards resolution. I invented Minimal Type Theory to
    see this, then I noticed that Prolog does the same thing.

    Which is irrelevent, since Prolog can't handle the basics of the
    field that Traski assumes.


    ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
    LP = not(true(LP)).
    ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
    false.

    LP := ~(L ⊢ LP)
    00 ~ 01
    01 ⊢ 01, 00
    02 L

    The cycle in the direct graph of LP is
    an infinite loop that make no progress
    towards the goal of evaluating LP as
    true or false.



    So?

    Failure to prove by example doesn't show something isn't true.

    You are just proving you are stupid and don't know what you are
    talking about.

    Every expression of language that cannot be proven
    or refuted by any finite or infinite sequence of
    truth preserving operations connecting it to its
    meaning specified as a finite expression of language
    is rejected.


    So?

    Tarski's x like Godel's G are know to be true by an infinite
    sequence of truth preserving operations.


    Liar?


    What lie?

    I guess you have confused yourself and lost your train of thought
    (which I think is just N gauge)

    Maybe the actual problem is that your ADD is much worse than I thought.

    You know that infinite proofs never determine knowledge AND claim
    that infinite proofs determine knowledge.



    No, infinite "proofs" determine TRUTH, not knowledge.

    That is part of you problem you think truth and knowledge are the same
    thing, but they are not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)