Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated

Dismiss

See shortcuts

sci.philosophy

1–30 of 447

0 selected

1/23/22

Truth-relevant Logic-Propositional Calculus (Xaver Newberry)

Truth-relevant Logic-Propositional Calculus https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330844403_Truth-

unread,

Truth-relevant Logic-Propositional Calculus (Xaver Newberry)

Truth-relevant Logic-Propositional Calculus https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330844403_Truth-

1/23/22

1/22/22

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant or Dishonest ]

On 1/22/2022 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 1/22/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 1/22/

unread,

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant or Dishonest ]

On 1/22/2022 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 1/22/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 1/22/

1/22/22

11/19/21

Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V19

typedef void (*ptr)(); int H(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); // direct execution of P(P) return 1; } // Minimal

unread,

Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V19

typedef void (*ptr)(); int H(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); // direct execution of P(P) return 1; } // Minimal

11/19/21

11/19/21

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V18 [ strawman error ]

On 11/19/2021 12:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-11-19 11:06, olcott wrote: >> On 11/

unread,

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V18 [ strawman error ]

On 11/19/2021 12:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-11-19 11:06, olcott wrote: >> On 11/

11/19/21

10/18/21

Re: My augmentation to foundationalism

On 10/17/2021 12:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/17/2021 10:23 AM, olcott wrote: > >>

unread,

Re: My augmentation to foundationalism

On 10/17/2021 12:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/17/2021 10:23 AM, olcott wrote: > >>

10/18/21

8/1/21

Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ]

On 8/1/2021 9:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben

unread,

Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ]

On 8/1/2021 9:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben

8/1/21

8/1/21

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ]

On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com>

unread,

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ]

On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com>

8/1/21

8/1/21

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ]

On 8/1/2021 7:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben

unread,

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ]

On 8/1/2021 7:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben

8/1/21

5/22/21

Eliminating the pathological self-reference error of the halting theorem (V8)

On 5/22/2021 1:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-05-22 11:46, olcott wrote: >> In

unread,

Eliminating the pathological self-reference error of the halting theorem (V8)

On 5/22/2021 1:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-05-22 11:46, olcott wrote: >> In

5/22/21

9/12/19

Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben

On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On

unread,

Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben

On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On

9/12/19

8/27/19

The Principle of Explosion is the Non Sequitur Error

On 8/27/2019 11:27 AM, peteolcott wrote: > When-so-ever symbolic logic diverges from the deductive

unread,

The Principle of Explosion is the Non Sequitur Error

On 8/27/2019 11:27 AM, peteolcott wrote: > When-so-ever symbolic logic diverges from the deductive

8/27/19

8/8/19

Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness

"This sentence is unprovable" can be proven to be unprovable on the basis that its

unread,

Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness

"This sentence is unprovable" can be proven to be unprovable on the basis that its

8/8/19

8/1/19

Tarski undefinability totally refuted by junior high school logic

On 5/22/2019 10:14 PM, peteolcott wrote: > Sound deductive inference necessitates true conclusions

unread,

Tarski undefinability totally refuted by junior high school logic

On 5/22/2019 10:14 PM, peteolcott wrote: > Sound deductive inference necessitates true conclusions

8/1/19

6/17/19

Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ The first incompleteness theorem states

unread,

Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ The first incompleteness theorem states

6/17/19

5/27/19

Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?

LHS(LP) and RHS(⊢¬LP) of this expression: (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) (1) If LP was true then the LHS would be true

unread,

Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?

LHS(LP) and RHS(⊢¬LP) of this expression: (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) (1) If LP was true then the LHS would be true

5/27/19

5/22/19

How can this possibly fail to partition True(x) from Untrue(x) for every formal system?

When we specify that True(x) is the consequences of the subset of the of conventional formal proofs

unread,

How can this possibly fail to partition True(x) from Untrue(x) for every formal system?

When we specify that True(x) is the consequences of the subset of the of conventional formal proofs

5/22/19

5/18/19

Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence (v2)

HERE IS THE ONE SENTENCE: If the notion of True(x) is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are

unread,

Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence (v2)

HERE IS THE ONE SENTENCE: If the notion of True(x) is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are

5/18/19

5/16/19

Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

If the notion of true is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are defined to be finite strings

unread,

Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

If the notion of true is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are defined to be finite strings

5/16/19

5/15/19

Defining a decidability decider that consistently decides decidability

I am going to explain this view in terms of the conventional notion of formal proofs of mathematical

unread,

Defining a decidability decider that consistently decides decidability

I am going to explain this view in terms of the conventional notion of formal proofs of mathematical

5/15/19

5/15/19

Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v9)

In AI research the following can be used to anchor the notion of [truth conditional semantics] in a

unread,

Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v9)

In AI research the following can be used to anchor the notion of [truth conditional semantics] in a

5/15/19

5/13/19

Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--its really not that hard--]

On 5/11/2019 5:41 AM, xilog wrote: > The material you refer to from Mendelson is standard and

unread,

Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--its really not that hard--]

On 5/11/2019 5:41 AM, xilog wrote: > The material you refer to from Mendelson is standard and

5/13/19

5/13/19

I am finally being understood to be correct

The following portion of what I have been saying is now finally clear enough to be understood to be

unread,

I am finally being understood to be correct

The following portion of what I have been saying is now finally clear enough to be understood to be

5/13/19

5/13/19

Deductively sound formal proofs (v7)

Mendelson, Elliott 2015. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (sixth edition) page 27-28 http://

unread,

Deductively sound formal proofs (v7)

Mendelson, Elliott 2015. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (sixth edition) page 27-28 http://

5/13/19

5/12/19

Deductively sound formal proofs (v6)

On 5/12/2019 1:11 AM, peteolcott wrote: > All that we have to do to provide > [deductively

unread,

Deductively sound formal proofs (v6)

On 5/12/2019 1:11 AM, peteolcott wrote: > All that we have to do to provide > [deductively

5/12/19

5/11/19

Semantic Tautologies

Within the correctly combined semantic meaning of conventional {formal proofs of mathematical logic}

unread,

Semantic Tautologies

Within the correctly combined semantic meaning of conventional {formal proofs of mathematical logic}

5/11/19

5/10/19

Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v2)

Within the conventional notion of formal proof: Γ ⊢ C http://liarparadox.org/Provable_Mendelson.pdf ¬

unread,

Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v2)

Within the conventional notion of formal proof: Γ ⊢ C http://liarparadox.org/Provable_Mendelson.pdf ¬

5/10/19

5/10/19

Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--it is not that difficult--]

On 5/10/2019 4:10 AM, xilog wrote: > To be specific, a description of a relatively recent proof in

unread,

Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--it is not that difficult--]

On 5/10/2019 4:10 AM, xilog wrote: > To be specific, a description of a relatively recent proof in

5/10/19

5/10/19

Re: Terse defence of Godel (is refuted)

On 5/7/2019 5:38 PM, xilog wrote: > I will pass over your comment on Tarski since I lack a

unread,

Re: Terse defence of Godel (is refuted)

On 5/7/2019 5:38 PM, xilog wrote: > I will pass over your comment on Tarski since I lack a

5/10/19

5/9/19

Defining Complete and consistent formal systems of mathematical logic

Within the sound deductive inference model True(x) is formalized as: (a) Axioms stipulated as

unread,

Defining Complete and consistent formal systems of mathematical logic

Within the sound deductive inference model True(x) is formalized as: (a) Axioms stipulated as

5/9/19

5/8/19

Is this logic sentence true or false: ∃G (G ↔ ¬Provable(G))

On 5/7/2019 10:18 PM, peteolcott wrote: > My hypothesis is there is no such G because G ↔ ¬

unread,

Is this logic sentence true or false: ∃G (G ↔ ¬Provable(G))

On 5/7/2019 10:18 PM, peteolcott wrote: > My hypothesis is there is no such G because G ↔ ¬

5/8/19

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu