On 8/30/2024 8:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-29 13:36:00 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 8/29/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-28 12:14:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-24 03:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-22 13:23:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2024 7:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-21 12:47:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Formal systems kind of sort of has some vague idea of what True
>>>>>>>>>> means. Tarski "proved" that there is no True(L,x) that can be
>>>>>>>>>> consistently defined.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *The defined predicate True(L,x) fixed that*
>>>>>>>>>> Unless expression x has a connection (through a sequence
>>>>>>>>>> of true preserving operations) in system F to its semantic
>>>>>>>>>> meanings expressed in language L of F then x is simply
>>>>>>>>>> untrue in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whenever there is no sequence of truth preserving from
>>>>>>>>>> x or ~x to its meaning in L of F then x has no truth-maker
>>>>>>>>>> in F and x not a truth-bearer in F. We never get to x is
>>>>>>>>>> undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski proved that True is undefineable in certain formal systems.
>>>>>>>>> Your definition is not expressible in F, at least not as a
>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like ZFC redefined the foundation of all sets I redefine
>>>>>>>> the foundation of all formal systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot redefine the foundation of all formal systems. Every
>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>> system has the foundation it has and that cannot be changed. Formal
>>>>>>> systems are eternal and immutable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then According to your reasoning ZFC is wrong because
>>>>>> it is not allowed to redefine the foundation of set
>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> It did not redefine anything. It is just another theory. It is called
>>>>> a set theory because its terms have many similarities to Cnator's
>>>>> sets.
>>>>
>>>> It the correct set theory. Naive set theory
>>>> is tossed out on its ass for being WRONG.
>>>
>>> There is no basis to say that ZF is more or less correct than ZFC.
>>
>> A set containing itself has always been incoherent in its
>> isomorphism to the concrete instance of a can of soup so
>> totally containing itself that it has no outside surface.
>> The above words are my own unique creation.
>
> There is no need for an isomorphism between a set an a can of soup.
> There is nothing inherently incoherent in Quine's atom. Some set
> theories allow it, some don't. Cantor's theory does not say either
> way.
>
Quine atoms (named after Willard Van Orman Quine) are sets that only
contain themselves, that is, sets that satisfy the formula x = {x}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms
Wrongo. This is exactly isomorphic to the incoherent notion of a
can of soup so totally containing itself that it has no outside
boundary.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|