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 262,753 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Tristan Wibberley    |
|    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_G=C3=B6del=27s_G_has_nev    |
|    28 Jan 26 12:17:32    |
      XPost: sci.math, comp.theory       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/28/2026 10:34 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:       > On 20/01/2026 21:39, olcott wrote:       >       >> a meta‑level system is required to stand above PA and       >> filter expressions before PA ever evaluates them. The       >> meta‑system performs the structural work PA cannot do:       >> it detects cycles, blocks diagonalization, rejects       >> non‑truth‑bearers, and prevents PA from entering       >> infinite loops.       >       >       > Then the truth predicate is a restricted truth predicate.       >              It is only restricted to its domain of knowledge       expressed in language. This excludes semantic nonsense       like pathological self-reference, type mismatch errors       and unknowns such as the truth value of the Goldbach       conjecture.              > I think Tarski's findings don't directly apply to what Olcott is doing       > as they are stated for systems with negation (of statements) carrying       > the semantics of contradiction. PA doesn't seem to have that in its       > axioms; then there's the matter of universal generality: is that a       > predicate, connective, or an operation? Some of those take the truth       > "predicate" away from Elementary Theorems, some of them don't but       > negation must lose its naivety as it becomes an operation.       >       > How does one characterise PA among:       >       > - syntactical system       > - schematic system       > - abstract formal system       > - concrete formal system       > etc...       >       > understanding that there is some overlap.       >              What I am proposing is that PA is entirely syntactic       and when we add a truth predicate anchored entirely       in the axioms of PA that this predicate itself is       at a meta-level. When we explicitly add this predicate       then we can really see what is actually true in PA       itself and this has always been provable in PA.              Incompleteness only arose because what was true       outside of PA could not be proved inside PA. This       was a mere conflation error all along.              --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca