On 8/31/24 8:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/31/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-30 14:45:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> As I already said, that isomorphism is not needed. It is not useful.
>
> It proves incoherence at a deeper level. Prior to my
> isomorphism we only have Russell's Paradox to show
> that there is a problem with Naive set theory.
But you isomorphism doesn't prove anything except your own stupidity.
>
> That these kind of paradoxes are not understood to
> mean incoherence in the system has allowed the issue
> of undecidability to remain open.
Nope, that isn't the problem, and also shows your stupidity.
Undecidability, in perhaps over simplified terms, comes because the
power of the questions the system can ask grows faster than the power of
the system to answer them.
For Computability, there are aleph_1 possible maps to try to compute,
but only aleph_0 computation machines possible, so there MUST be MANY
maps that can not be computed.
>
> The Liar Paradox is isomorphic to a set containing itself:
> Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) yet we still
> construe the Liar Paradox as legitimate.
Nope, try to show what the mophism is that you claim is "iso".
>
>> Anyway, nice to see that you don't disagree with may observation that
>> Quines atom is not inherently incoherent.
>>
>
> Even ZFC sees that it is incoherent. Quine seemed to be
> a bit of a knucklehead. He was too dumb to understand that
> analytic/synthetic distinction even when Carnap spelled
> it out for him: ∀x (Bachelor(x) := ~Married(x))
>
No, ZFC says it doesn't support it. NOT that it is incoherent.
It seems you are so ignorant you just don't understand the meaning of
the words you use, and can't see that problem, which is the worse form
of stupidity.
Fundamentally, you just don't understand what it means for something to
be true, which is why you are trying to invent your own definition.
Perhaps your definition does make al Analytic(Olcott) truth computable,
not by expanding the power to prove stuff, but by restricting the domain
of discussion so small that the knowledge of that set complete.
The problem is you can't see the walls of the prison you have built for
yourself, and think everything that you can't get to from your prison
cell must be awful, or you should have been able to get there.
It seems your "self-justifier" is just broken and set to full throttle,
and the real world no longer matters, only the pitiful place where PO is
"God" and says what happens.
|
|