Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,629 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenst    |
|    20 Jan 26 12:13:19    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang.semantics   
   XPost: comp.ai.nat-lang   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/19/2026 11:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/19/26 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct   
   >> all along. His key essence of grounding truth in   
   >> well-founded proof theoretic semantics did not exist   
   >> at the time that he made these remarks. Because of   
   >> this his remarks were misunderstood to be based   
   >> on ignorance instead of the profound insight that   
   >> they really were.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope.   
   >   
   >> According to Wittgenstein:   
   >> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved   
   >> in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'   
   >> means: the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.   
   >> (Wittgenstein 1983,118-119)   
   >   
   > Which is only ONE interpretation, (and not a correct one).   
   >   
      
   All we need to do to make PA complete   
   is replace model theoretic semantics   
   with wellfounded proof theoretic sematics   
   and ground true in OA the way Haskell   
   Curry defines it entirely on the basis   
   of the axioms of PA,   
      
   ∀x ∈ PA ((True(PA, x) ≡ (PA ⊢ x))   
   ∀x ∈ PA ((False(PA, x) ≡ (PA ⊢ ~x))   
   ∀x ∈ PA (~WellFounded(PA, x) ≡ (~True(PA, x) ∧ (~False(PA, x))   
   Then PA becomes complete.   
      
   This is very similar to my work 8 years ago   
   where the axioms are construed as BaseFacts.   
   It was pure proof theoretic even way back then.   
      
   The ultimate foundation of [a priori] Truth   
   Olcott Feb 17, 2018, 12:42:55 AM   
   https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/dbk5vsDzZbQ/m/4ajW9R08CQAJ   
      
   >>   
   >> Formalized by Olcott as:   
   >>   
   >> ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀𝒞 ∈ WFF(F) (((F⊢𝒞)) ↔ True(F, 𝒞))   
   >> ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀𝒞 ∈ WFF(F) (((F⊬𝒞)) ↔ ¬True(F,   
   𝒞))   
   >> ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀𝒞 ∈ WFF(F) (((F⊢¬𝒞)) ↔ False(F,   
   𝒞))   
   >   
   > Which can be not-well-founded, as determining *IF* a statement is   
   > proveable or not provable might not be provable, or even knowable.   
   >   
   > So, therefore you can't actually evaluate your statement.   
   >   
      
   All meta-math is defined to be outside the scope of PA.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> The terminology which has just been used implies that   
   >> the elementary statements are not such that their truth   
   >> and falsity are known to us without reference to {T}.   
   >> (Curry 1977:45)   
   >>   
   >> Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V12   
   >> olcott Jun 26, 2020, 4:15:48 PM   
   >> comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.lang.semantics   
   >> Message-ID:
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca