Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.theory > #139297

Re: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" as the ultimate anchor

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/20/26 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/19/2026 11:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/19/26 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Formerly Re: Analytic Truth-makers
>>> in sci/logic and comp.theory
>>>
>>> On 7/23/2024 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am establishing a new meaning for
>>>> {true on the basis of meaning expressed in language}
>>>> Formerly known as {analytic truth}.
>>>> This makes True(L,x) computable and definable.
>>>>
>>>> L is the language of a formal mathematical system.
>>>> x is an expression of that language.
>>>>
>>>> When we understand that True(L,x) means that there is a finite
>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations in L from the semantic
>>>> meaning of x to x in L, then mathematical incompleteness is abolished.
>>>>
>>>> ~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)
>>>> means that x is not a truth-bearer in L.
>>>> It does not mean that L is incomplete
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/23/2024 11:26 AM, olcott in sci.logic, comp.theory
>>> <MPG.4109e1eeb98e7f829896fe@reader.eternal-september.org>
>>>
>>> The above post is when I bridged the analytic/synthetic
>>> divide that has existed since 1952
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
>>
>> Which isn't about "Formal Logic Systems" and thus not applicable to 
>> what you have been trying to talk about.
>>
> 
> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
> Is the sharp line of demarcation between objects
> of math and computation and things that are not
> objects of math and computation.

No, it shows that your definition of "true" doesn't handle truth that is 
the result of logical analysis, but only based on categorical definitions.

While it says that you can conclude that Cats are Animals, as that is 
part of the definition of the word, it does NOT let you conclude that 
most cats have 19 pairs of chromosomes.

> 
> This line was blurred by Willard Van Orman Quine's
> (1952) "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" until 18 months
> ago when I came up with that.

Which isn't about Formal systems, so not applicable to that field.

> 
>> Note, that is about Philosophy, which argues about what is true about 
>> the world, NOT Formal Logic System, which talk about what is true in a 
>> Formal Logic system, which is ALWAYS what would be called analytic in 
>> that paper, as there is no "reality" except what derives from the 
>> analytic rules, so "syntetic" or emperical doesn't really exist, but 
>> is sometimes used to indicate things whose truth derives from an 
>> infinite chain of operatations, and thus are not analytically provable.
>>
> 
> *Russell’s Logical Atomism*
> the claim that the world consists of a plurality
> of independently existing things exhibiting qualities
> and standing in relations. According to logical atomism,
> all truths are ultimately dependent upon a layer of
> atomic facts, which consist either of a simple particular
> exhibiting a quality, or multiple simple particulars
> standing in a relation.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/

WHich again, is not about Formal Logic systems, so not applicable here.

> 
> This is exactly the "atomic facts" that are the axioms
> of my formal system of all knowledge. To make such a
> system physically implementable in a finite set of
> atomic facts the details of most events are not stored
> directly in the system. The system is at least the
> complete body of general knowledge. It is augmented
> with details of high priority events.

Not really, but seems more of an attempt to bring some of the formalism 
of Formal Logic into general Philosophy.

> 
>>>
>>> with:  "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>
>> Which you break by changing the meaning of words.
>>
>> All you do here is show you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
> 
> When the foundations of formal systems anchored in
> model theoretic semantics are replaced by proof theoretic
> semantics and each formal system has its own truth
> predicate anchored in the Haskell Curry notion of
> "true in the system" then the conflation error of
> what was previously mistaken for "true in the system"
> is corrected.
> 

No, as I have shown, your interpretation of proof-theoretic semanancts 
are just not applicable to Formal Systems with enough complexity, as it 
breaks them.

I guess you think that in math, 1 + 1 = 2 is not true in mathematics, or 
where is the line between that and Godel's relationship, which just uses 
similar mathematics.

Your problem is your defintion of proof-theoretic semantics needs to use 
truth-conditional semantics to determin some of its values, and thus is 
inherently not-well-founded.

It is YOUR conflating of the system that does you in.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" as the ultimate anchor olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2026-01-19 13:11 -0600
  Re: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" as the ultimate anchor olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-19 14:32 -0600
  Re: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" as the ultimate anchor Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
    Re: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" as the ultimate anchor olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 13:21 -0600
      Re: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" as the ultimate anchor Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 23:00 -0500

csiph-web