Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.ai.nat-lang > #3115
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, sci.lang.semantics, comp.ai.nat-lang |
| Subject | Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along |
| Date | 2026-01-20 22:49 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10kplsj$1r5sj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <MYGdne0bgJbJ7fP0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <epEbR.400773$rbZb.366040@fx17.iad> <10kogk1$1el5g$1@dont-email.me> <KbYbR.240562$VY9.127451@fx10.iad> |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
On 1/20/2026 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 1/20/26 1:13 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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, > > Nope, doesn't work. > > THe system breaks as it can't consistantly determine > the truth value of some statements. Just to make it simpler for you to understand think of it as a truth and falsity recognizer that gets stuck in an infinite loop on anything else. So PA is complete for its domain. > >> >> ∀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. > > And, in proof-theoretic semantics, this is just not-well-founded as > there are statements that you can not determine if any of these are > applicable or not. >> >> 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 > > At least that accepted that there were statement that it couldn't handle > as they were neiteher true or false. > > With your addition, we get that there are statements that can be none of > True, False, or ~WellFounded. > This was the earliest documented work that can be classified as well-founded proof theoretic semantics. My actual work is documented to go back to 1998. >> >>>> >>>> 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. > > But we don't need "meta-math" to establish the answer. > > It is a FACT that no number will satisfy the Relationship, That relationship does not even exist outside of meta-math -- Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br> reliably computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
Back to comp.ai.nat-lang | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2026-01-19 11:56 -0600
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 12:13 -0600
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 23:00 -0500
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 22:49 -0600
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-21 07:38 -0500
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 09:14 -0600
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 19:02 +0000
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-21 14:14 -0600
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-22 07:42 -0500
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 10:43 -0600
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-22 19:13 -0500
Re: Back in 2020 I proved that Wittgenstein was correct all along Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 18:55 +0000
csiph-web