XPost: sci.logic
On 3/5/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/5/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/5/24 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/5/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-03-05 00:56:19 +0000, olcott said:
Correcting the incorrect foundation of the notion of analytic
truth is my whole reason for pursuing these things.
Correcting means replacing. If you replace the foundation you
must also replace the term "analytic truth" as you cannot
replace the emaning of an existing term.
I started doing this in another forum referring to Analytic(Olcott).
Analytic(Olcott) means true on the basis of the meaning of its words
such that the entire relevant meaning of these words is specified
as text. Because of this we can know that "dogs bark" without ever
having to hear an actual dog barking.
So, why are you trying to be more truthful in some places than others?
When I said that I am am stipulating a new definition of analytic
I assumed that people paid attention to what I just said.
This would mean that every reference to the term analytic
after I said I was redefining it would be this new definition.
Except that if you define a new definition for analytical truth, you can
not then use that in any system that already has the old definition in
it, or derives from such a system.
For instance, Computation Theory is built on the original definition of
truth.
So, you can't use your new definition and talk about the Halting Problem without being a LIAR.
At least, not until you have done the ground work to have a new
computtion theory based on your new definition.
Somethine we agree will certainly take more than the rest of you lifetime.
Is it that to be honest here, it just shows that all your work has
just been a lie, and you can't actually show what you claim to show,
and it becomes just too obvious even for you?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)