Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Tarski

[olcott]

Within the entire body of analytical truth any
expression of language that has no sequence of
formalized semantic deductive inference steps from the
formalized semantic foundational truths of this system
are simply untrue in this system. (Isomorphic to
provable from axioms).

If there is a misconception then you have misconceived
something. It is well
known that it is possible to construct a formal theory
where some formulas
are neither provble nor disprovable.

This is well known.

And well undeerstood. The claim on the subject line is
false.

a fact or piece of information that shows that something
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/proof

We require that terms of art are used with their term-of-
art meaning and

The fundamental base meaning of Truth[0] itself remains the
same
no matter what idiomatic meanings say.

Irrelevant as the subject line does not mention truth.
Therefore, no need to revise my initial comment.

misconception means ~True.

The title line means that something is misunderstood but that
something
is not the meaning of "true".

It is untrue because it is misunderstood.

Mathematical incompleteness is not a claim so it cannot be untrue.

That mathematical incompleteness coherently exists <is> claim.

Yes, but you didn't claim that.

The closest that it can possibly be interpreted as true would
be that because key elements of proof[0] have been specified
as not existing in proof[math] math is intentionally made less
than complete.

Math is not intentionally incomplete.

You paraphrased what I said incorrectly.

No, I did not paraphrase anything.

Proof[math] was defined to have less capability than Proof[0].

That is not a part of the definition but it is a consequence of the
definition. Much of the lost capability is about things that are
outside of the scope of mathemiatics and formal theories.

When one thinks of math as only pertaining to numbers then math
is inherently very limited.

That's right. That limited area should be called "number theory",
not "mathematics".

When one applies something like
Montague Grammar to formalize every detail of natural language
semantics then math takes on much more scope.

It is not possible to specify every detail of a natural language.
In order to do so one should know every detail of a natural language.
While one is finding out the language changes so that the already
aquired knowledge is invalid.

When we see this then we see "incompleteness" is a mere artificial
contrivance.

Hallucinations are possible but only proofs count in mathematics.

True(x) always means that a connection to a semantic
truthmaker exists. When math does this differently it is simply
breaking the rules.

Mathematics does not make anything about "True(x)". Some branches care
about semantic connections, some don't. Much of logic is about comparing
semantic connections to syntactic ones.

Many theories are incomplete,
intertionally or otherwise, but they don't restrict the rest of math.
But there are areas of matheimatics that are not yet studied.

When-so-ever any expression of formal or natural language X lacks
a connection to its truthmaker X remains untrue.

An expresion can be true in one interpretation and false in another.

I am integrating the semantics into the evaluation as its full context.

Then you cannot have all the advantages of formal logic. In particular,
you need to be able to apply and verify formally invalid inferences.

All of the rules of correct reasoning (correcting the errors of

There are no semantic connections between uninterpreted strings.
With different interpretations different connections can be found.

When we do not break the evaluation of an expression of language
into its syntax and semantics such that these are evaluated
separately and use something like Montague Semantics to formalize
the semantics as relations between finite strings then

it is clear that any expression of language that lacks a connection
through a truthmaker to the semantics that makes it true simply remains
untrue.

In the big picture way that truth really works there cannot
possibly be true[0](x) that is not provable[0](x) where x
is made true by finite strings expressing its semantic meanings.

When one finite string expression of language is known to be true
other expressions are know to be semantically entailed.

Only if they are connected with (semantic or other) connections that
are known to preserve truth.

Yes, there must be truth preserving operations.
Formal logic fails at this some of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

The only thing that is actually semantically entailed by a
contradiction is FALSE. (A & ~A) ⊨ FALSE

I fail to understand how anyone could be gullible enough into
being conned into believing that anything besides FALSE is
entailed by a contradiction.

When we do this and require an expression of formal or natural language
to have a semantic connection to its truthmaker then true[0] cannot
exist apart from provable[0].

Maybe, maybe not. Without the full support of formal logic it is hard to
prove. An unjustified faith does not help.

It all has always boiled down to semantic entailment.

Which is hard to show without the full support of formal logic.

We simply leave most of formal logic as it is with some changes:
(1) Non-truth preserving operations are eliminated.

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if
it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises
to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

*We correct the above fundamental mistake*
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if
it takes a form that the conclusion is a necessary
consequence of its premises.

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

True[math] can only exist apart from Provable[math] within
the narrow minded, idiomatic use of these terms. This is
NOT the way that True[0] and Provable[0] actually work.

If you want that to be true you need to define True[math] differently
from the way "truth" is used by mathimaticians.

We could equally define a "dead cat" to be a kind of {cow}.
Math does not get to change the way that truth really works,
when math tries to do this math is incorrect.

Math does not care how truth works outside mathematics. But the truth
about mathematics works the way truth usually does.

Math is not allowed to break these rules without making math incorrect.

My point is much more clear when we see that Tarski attempts
to show that True[0] is undefinable.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Tarski did not attempt to show that True[0] is undefinable. He showed
quite successfully that arthmetic truth is undefinable. Whether that
proof applies to your True[0] is not yet determined.

Tarski is the foremost author of the whole notion of every
kind of truth. "snow is white" because within the actual state
of affairs the color of snow is perceived by humans to be white.

Many philosophers before and after Tarski have tried to find out what
truth really is and how it works.

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.

[olcott]

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

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

[olcott]

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

x is defined to be !True(L, x)

When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it

Post by olcott
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.

Post by olcott

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

[Richard Damon]

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

x is defined to be !True(L, x)

When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it

Post by olcott
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.

Post by olcott

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

[olcott]

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

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

And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the
requirements of a predicate,

Not at all. True(L,x) is no longer baffled by semantically
incorrect expressions and rejects them as IFF ill-formed-formula.

So, what does True(L, x) say for an x defined as !True(L, x)
All answers are just wrong.

*The simplest way for you to understand this is*

then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas...

In the Comenius language: x := ~True(L,x)
is rejected as an ill-formed-formula.
Ross really did boil down the essence much more succinctly.

[Richard Damon]

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

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

And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the
requirements of a predicate,

Not at all. True(L,x) is no longer baffled by semantically
incorrect expressions and rejects them as IFF ill-formed-formula.

So, what does True(L, x) say for an x defined as !True(L, x)
All answers are just wrong.

*The simplest way for you to understand this is*

then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas...

In the Comenius language: x := ~True(L,x)
is rejected as an ill-formed-formula.
Ross really did boil down the essence much more succinctly.

So, what is the answer? What answer does True(L, x) return?

Parroting words by Rote that you do not understand is just futile, and
proves you don't understand the problem.

Note, it is also a sign of intentional Fraud to keep on puting YOUR
replies to more places than you indicate that replies should go.

If you think both places are appropriate, don't limit follow up.

If you think discussion should be in one place, respect your own followups.

You are just proving that you don't respect the truth or other people,
but think you must be "special".

Yes, special as in needing to travel in the "special ed bus" because you
are incapable of dealing with the real world.

Note, I respect those that have a ligitement need for special education,
because most of those people are doing their best to do what they can.

You have intentionally made yourself stupid, and that isn't an excuse,
you are just a damned LYING FRAUD.

[olcott]

Post by Richard Damon

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

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

And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the
requirements of a predicate,

Not at all. True(L,x) is no longer baffled by semantically
incorrect expressions and rejects them as IFF ill-formed-formula.

So, what does True(L, x) say for an x defined as !True(L, x)
All answers are just wrong.

*The simplest way for you to understand this is*
 > then there's a Comenius language of it that only
 > truisms are well-formed formulas...
In the Comenius language: x := ~True(L,x)
is rejected as an ill-formed-formula.
Ross really did boil down the essence much more succinctly.

So, what is the answer? What answer does True(L, x) return?

When x := ~True(L, x) then the Comenius language parser
returns: Syntax Error.

[Richard Damon]

Post by olcott

Post by Richard Damon

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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
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

And if True(L, x) isn't "well formed" then True fails to meet the
requirements of a predicate,

Not at all. True(L,x) is no longer baffled by semantically
incorrect expressions and rejects them as IFF ill-formed-formula.

So, what does True(L, x) say for an x defined as !True(L, x)
All answers are just wrong.

*The simplest way for you to understand this is*
 > then there's a Comenius language of it that only
 > truisms are well-formed formulas...
In the Comenius language: x := ~True(L,x)
is rejected as an ill-formed-formula.
Ross really did boil down the essence much more succinctly.

So, what is the answer? What answer does True(L, x) return?

When x := ~True(L, x) then the Comenius language parser
returns: Syntax Error.

Then it isn't a predicate. That, or your logic doesn't support the
needed power to create the Natural Numbers.

Sorry, you just proved the point that you are a stupid liar, and to
stupid to understand your stupidity.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

x is defined to be !True(L, x)

When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it

Post by olcott
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.

Post by olcott

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

The Comenius language that Comenius posits, is also
like Leibniz' universal language, which also he posits,
like Nietzsche's eternal text, which he bemoans its
absence, and like Quine in Word & Object, ignores.
then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas,

I remember reading about this years ago and can no longer
find it. Do you have a specific reference to this Comenius
language of truisms?

Well, I imagine I first heard of it in Hofstadter or Rucker,
then the Wikipedia entry on Comenius might mention it,
then among my ton of books a "library" it's mentioned.

More importantly though, as strong mathematical platonists,
as more or less the universe of statements of mathematical
objects, it's merely discovered to exist, for if there
weren't one, then there would be none.

Then, a Comenius language is this ideal true language,
while a, "Coleridge language", is the idea of an
otherwise analytical language.

I mention this often in my podcasts.

https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson

The idea of "Logos" itself is also associated
with the same sort of thing, then it's nice to
associate it with Comenius, who was a great educator.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by olcott

Post by olcott

Post by olcott
(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.

Post by olcott
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.

x is defined to be !True(L, x)

When we frame it the succinct way that Ross framed it

Post by olcott
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.

Post by olcott

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

The Comenius language that Comenius posits, is also
like Leibniz' universal language, which also he posits,
like Nietzsche's eternal text, which he bemoans its
absence, and like Quine in Word & Object, ignores.
then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas,

I remember reading about this years ago and can no longer
find it. Do you have a specific reference to this Comenius
language of truisms?

Well, I imagine I first heard of it in Hofstadter or Rucker,
then the Wikipedia entry on Comenius might mention it,
then among my ton of books a "library" it's mentioned.
More importantly though, as strong mathematical platonists,
as more or less the universe of statements of mathematical
objects, it's merely discovered to exist, for if there
weren't one, then there would be none.
Then, a Comenius language is this ideal true language,
while a, "Coleridge language", is the idea of an
otherwise analytical language.
I mention this often in my podcasts.
The idea of "Logos" itself is also associated
with the same sort of thing, then it's nice to
associate it with Comenius, who was a great educator.

[olcott]

Of course, completness can be achieved if language is sufficiently
restricted so that sufficiently many arithemtic truths become
inexpressible.
It is far from clear that a theory of that kind can express all
arithmetic
truths that Peano arithmetic can and avoid its incompletness.

WHich, it seems, are the only type of logic system that Peter can
understand.
He can only think in primitive logic systems that can't reach the
complexity needed for the proofs he talks about, but can't see the
problem, as he just doesn't understand the needed concepts.

That would be OK if he wouldn't try to solve problems that cannot even
exist in those systems.

There are no problems than cannot be solved in a system
that can also reject semantically incorrect expressions.

then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas...

We can easily extend the Comenius language to evaluate
FALSE as well as TRUE by allowing True(L, x) to also
evaluate True(L, ~x).

[Richard Damon]

Post by olcott

Of course, completness can be achieved if language is sufficiently
restricted so that sufficiently many arithemtic truths become
inexpressible.
It is far from clear that a theory of that kind can express all
arithmetic
truths that Peano arithmetic can and avoid its incompletness.

WHich, it seems, are the only type of logic system that Peter can
understand.
He can only think in primitive logic systems that can't reach the
complexity needed for the proofs he talks about, but can't see the
problem, as he just doesn't understand the needed concepts.

That would be OK if he wouldn't try to solve problems that cannot even
exist in those systems.

There are no problems than cannot be solved in a system
that can also reject semantically incorrect expressions.

So you think.

So, what *IS* the answer to True(L, x) where x is !True(L, x)

"Reject" is not an option unless you admit that your system can't handle
the properties of the Natural Numbers, proving you are just a liar.

Post by olcott

then there's a Comenius language of it that only
truisms are well-formed formulas...

We can easily extend the Comenius language to evaluate
FALSE as well as TRUE by allowing True(L, x) to also
evaluate True(L, ~x).