« first day (21 days earlier)      last day (16 days later) » 

polcott
polcott
6:43 PM
---
We can know that every simple analytic statement is true entirely on the basis that its stipulated relationship exists within the body of analytic knowledge. We know this in the same sort of way that we know that the following BASIC program will reach line 50:

10 LET N = 0
20 IF N = 0 THEN 50
30 PRINT "Number Does Not Equal zero"
40 GOTO 60
50 PRINT "Number Equals Zero"
60 END

The relationship between "N" and "0" is stipulated on line 10.

In at least some cases we can know with complete certainty that an expression of language is definitely true because this expression of language ex…
 
 
1 hour later…
polcott
polcott
7:58 PM
@Dcleve It is very easy to reject Gödel's 1931 incompleteness. If you actually read this link: liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf You would see that any expression X that is neither provable nor refutable in F is simply outside of the scope of F.
 
Dcleve
Dcleve
8:35 PM
@polcott -- W did not reject Gödel's Incompleteness paper, your claim he did, in an excerpt in which he said nothing of the kind, is a grotesque misreading. that you LOOK for confirmation bias, so much so that you rewrite the clear text of what others say -- both will guarantee you will not benefit from criticism, and drastically limits the value anyone else will get from dialog with you.
What w's passage shows is that all statements about the boundary of a logical system, INCLUDING statements about what can or cannot be said in the system -- are subject to contradiction, and this leads to explosion. And as the systems cannot exclude such statements -- all logical systems have contradictions, and cannot resolve "truth".
Your various claims about the universality of "true" and the definition of true== confirmed, are exactly the statements that W just pointed out lead inevitably to contradictions. One would have to exclude the discussion of the POSIBILITY of universal truth from your language system, and the POSSIBILITY of evaluating it's valid range, or what content it can or can't communicate, to avoid these contradictions. Plus many other crippling ad hoc limits. W's passage refutes your entire project.
 
polcott
polcott
8:58 PM
0
A: Why does the Principle of Explosion not make Mathematical Logic inconsistent?

SpeakpigeonThe POE only came to seem legitimate once mathematicians realised it was a necessary consequence of their system of logic at the time, essentially propositional logic based on the truth table of the material implication. As they were unable to conceive of a better system, they choose to promote...

"
"Your various claims about the universality of "true" and the definition of true== confirmed, are exactly the statements that W just pointed out lead inevitably to contradictions." Not if you do it correctly. To do it correctly requires reformulating the notion of what formal system is and what is it not. The current formulation is logically incoherent. Copyright 2020 PL Olcott
 
 
1 hour later…
Dcleve
Dcleve
10:01 PM
@polcott -- goodness -- you just linked to a question that demonstrated that logic method is discretionary, and you advocated yourself or using a different logic approach, (without your actually deriving a new logic, nor even understanding the consequences of the new formalism you claimed to want to use) yet STILL you insist there is only one logic??? This example is an even better citation for your inability to think when it comes to your core assumptions!
bowing out again, dialog appears to be futile
 
polcott
polcott
10:13 PM
@Dcleve The only correct logic system is a system that performs semantic logical entailment or its syntactic equivalent. There are an unlimited number of ways to say this same thing both correctly or incorrectly. It all boils down to some form of sound deductive inference. Because the principle of explosion contradicts the sound deductive inference model it is simply incorrect.
 

« first day (21 days earlier)      last day (16 days later) »