XPost: sci.logic

On 10/15/2021 10:06 AM, Dan Christensen wrote:

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 9:43:01 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2021 11:22 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 11:18:14 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2021 9:33 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:

There are too many exceptions to the rule, too many idiomatic constructs. The notion of vacuous truth would seem to me to be the least of your problems. Eliminating it would only make your task more difficult IMHO. As I alluded to above, other more

basic rules of logic will also have to be eliminated. It's a "package deal" as they say. You should learn to live with it. Properly applied, it won't, in itself, lead to any errors or inconsistencies.

No comment??? You will really need to sort out this "package deal" thing first. You will waste a lot time going in circles otherwise. It may be that natural language itself will have to evolve in certain directions to solve this formalization problem

of yours.

Since I, Richard Montague and others have been considering this for many
years we know that no changes need be made to natural language to
formalize it.

All of your objections go away at the purely semantic level. The
formalized grammar of natural language semantics is so much simpler that
these complexities that you refer to are eliminated or reduced to a
manageable level. Idioms do not exist at the purely semantic level.

Basic rules of logic mostly need not be eliminated. The biggest change
to logic is that it is not allowed to ignore semantics.

The basic rules of logic lead unavoidably to the notion of vacuous truth

To the extent that the basic rules of logic lead to the nonsense concept
of vacuous truth the basic rules of logic are semantically incorrect.

(i.e. ~A => [A => B]). See my proof here. Sooner or later, your formalization process will have to deal with this.

BTW you never did say why you or anyone else would want to formalize natural language.

To create a software based human mind.

To me, it seems destined to fail.

Only because you have not bothered to think it through to the same
extent of others.

If you want a formal system of logic, you really can't beat classical logic.

I will literally beat it to its own death.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)