We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
logic.

THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.

This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.

It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.

We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.

That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
from correct reasoning.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
> logic.
>
> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
>
> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>
> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>
> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
>
> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
> from correct reasoning.
>

So, have you done ANY work to show what this fundamental change in logic
actually does.

How do you ACTUALLY DEFINE that statement?

You seem to have a problem with the statement that if we have proven
that if A or B being true proves that C is true, and if we can prove
that C is true and A can be proven false, that B must be true.

(I.E, your "Rules of Logic" don't seem to be able to handle abstract
concepts)

What can your logic system actually derive?

We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.

*THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
their premises.

This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.

This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
thus cancelling his whole theorem.

It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/8/23 5:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
> from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.
>
> *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
> Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
> their premises.
>
> This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.
>
> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>
> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>
>
>
> And what exactly do you mean by that?

Can your idea handle "abstract" concepts?

If we have established that if A is True, or if B is True, then by
necessity C is True; and if then we can show that A it True, can we
establish that C is actually true?

If we have established that if A is True, or if B is True, then by
necessity that C is true; and if then we can show that C actually is
True, but A can not be, can we then state that B must be true?

Do you even understand what you are claiming?

If you deny any of the above, can your logic system actually prove
anything useful, or is it just a "toy"?

On 8/8/2023 9:40 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
>> from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.
>> *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
>> Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
>> their premises.
>>
>> This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.
>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>>
>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>
> You said this 4 days ago and got nowhere.
>
> Dan

I revised it. I simplified the unifying criterion measure.
It is not that I got nowhere. It only seems that way on
the basis of not understanding what I am saying.

The meaning of the words that I said above proves that they
are all true.

People that don't fully understand the meaning of the simple
conventional words that I use in: *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
will not be able to verify that such a system wold get rid of
incompleteness, undefinability and the principle of explosion.

There are a lot more details that must be specified before
*THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE* can be fully implemented yet it
does remain a single change.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/8/23 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 9:40 PM, Dan Christensen wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> We can correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate logic
>>> from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate logic.
>>> *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
>>> Valid arguments only include conclusions as a necessary consequence of
>>> their premises.
>>>
>>> This brings predicate logic back in line with the syllogism.
>>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
>>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>>>
>>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>>
>> You said this 4 days ago and got nowhere.
>>
>> Dan
>
> I revised it. I simplified the unifying criterion measure.
> It is not that I got nowhere. It only seems that way on
> the basis of not understanding what I am saying.
>
> The meaning of the words that I said above proves that they
> are all true.
>
> People that don't fully understand the meaning of the simple
> conventional words that I use in: *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE*
> will not be able to verify that such a system wold get rid of
> incompleteness, undefinability and the principle of explosion.
>
> There are a lot more details that must be specified before
> *THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE* can be fully implemented yet it
> does remain a single change.
>

No, it is an UNDEFINED change, since you can't actually define what it
means.

You haven't answered the simple questions I made about it, because if
you try to, you will reveil that it makes the logic system worthless (or
shows that it isn't actually any change at all)

You are just proving your utter stupidity.

On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
> logic.
>
> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.

Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?

>
> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
> thus cancelling his whole theorem.

And what are you changing?

Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.

That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.

Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
context (which are logically part of them)

>
> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.

But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
finite series of logical conclusions.

Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
of the system, to it.

Provable means that there exists a finite chain.

Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
to them are infinte in length.

You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.

>
> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
>
> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
> from correct reasoning.
>

Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> > We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
> > logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
> > logic.
> >
> > THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
> > Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
> > conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
> Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
> >
> > This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
> > eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
> > thus cancelling his whole theorem.
> And what are you changing?
>
> Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
>
> That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
>
> Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
> context (which are logically part of them)
> >
> > It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
> > because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
> > conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
> But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
> finite series of logical conclusions.
>
> Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
> of the system, to it.
>
> Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
>
> Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
> to them are infinte in length.
>
> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
> >
> > We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
> > unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
> > consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
> >
> > That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
> > from correct reasoning.
> >
> Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.

I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.

On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
>>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
>>> logic.
>>>
>>> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
>>> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
>>> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
>> Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
>>>
>>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
>>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>> And what are you changing?
>>
>> Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
>>
>> That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
>>
>> Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
>> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
>> context (which are logically part of them)
>>>
>>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>> But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
>> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
>> finite series of logical conclusions.
>>
>> Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
>> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
>> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
>> of the system, to it.
>>
>> Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
>>
>> Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
>> to them are infinte in length.
>>
>> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
>>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
>>>
>>> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
>>> from correct reasoning.
>>>
>> Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
>
> I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.

In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
> >>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
> >>> logic.
> >>>
> >>> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
> >>> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
> >>> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
> >> Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
> >> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
> >>>
> >>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
> >>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
> >>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
> >> And what are you changing?
> >>
> >> Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
> >> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
> >>
> >> That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
> >> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
> >>
> >> Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
> >> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
> >> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
> >> context (which are logically part of them)
> >>>
> >>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
> >>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
> >>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
> >> But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
> >> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
> >> finite series of logical conclusions.
> >>
> >> Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
> >> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
> >> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
> >> of the system, to it.
> >>
> >> Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
> >>
> >> Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
> >> to them are infinte in length.
> >>
> >> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
> >>>
> >>> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
> >>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
> >>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
> >>>
> >>> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
> >>> from correct reasoning.
> >>>
> >> Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
> >
> > I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
> In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?

On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
>>>>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
>>>>> logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
>>>>> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
>>>>> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
>>>> Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
>>>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
>>>>>
>>>>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
>>>>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
>>>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>>>> And what are you changing?
>>>>
>>>> Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
>>>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
>>>>
>>>> That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
>>>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
>>>> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
>>>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
>>>> context (which are logically part of them)
>>>>>
>>>>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
>>>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
>>>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>>>> But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
>>>> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
>>>> finite series of logical conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
>>>> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
>>>> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
>>>> of the system, to it.
>>>>
>>>> Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
>>>>
>>>> Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
>>>> to them are infinte in length.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
>>>>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
>>>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
>>>>> from correct reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>> Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
>>>
>>> I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
>> In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
>> --
>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?

I think that all Olcott's are related.
https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:13:58 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
> >>>>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
> >>>>> logic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
> >>>>> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
> >>>>> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
> >>>> Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
> >>>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
> >>>>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
> >>>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
> >>>> And what are you changing?
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
> >>>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
> >>>>
> >>>> That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
> >>>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
> >>>> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
> >>>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
> >>>> context (which are logically part of them)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
> >>>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
> >>>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
> >>>> But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
> >>>> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
> >>>> finite series of logical conclusions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
> >>>> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
> >>>> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
> >>>> of the system, to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
> >>>>
> >>>> Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
> >>>> to them are infinte in length.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
> >>>>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
> >>>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
> >>>>> from correct reasoning.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
> >>>
> >>> I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
> >> In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> >
> > are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
> I think that all Olcott's are related.
> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

I am an amateur astronomer, so this is the one I'm familiar with:

William Tyler Olcott (January 11, 1873–July 6, 1936) was an American lawyer and amateur astronomer.
Born
January 11, 1873
Norwich, Connecticut
Died
July 6, 1936 (aged 63)
New Hampshire

On 8/11/2023 5:00 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:13:58 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:28:04 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2023 11:58 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:54:33 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/4/23 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> We may be able to correct every divergence of (every level of) predicate
>>>>>>> logic from correct reasoning by making a single change to predicate
>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS IS THE SINGLE CHANGE
>>>>>>> Every aspect of every level of predicate logic must only derive
>>>>>>> conclusions as a necessary consequence of its premises.
>>>>>> Simple question, what make you think that predicat logic allows you to
>>>>>> derive a conclusion that isn't a "neccessary consequence" of its premises?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This single change by itself cancels the principle of explosion. It also
>>>>>>> eliminates the Liar Paradox basis of the Tarski Undefinability theorem
>>>>>>> thus cancelling his whole theorem.
>>>>>> And what are you changing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, you can only use inferences that are either given as part of
>>>>>> the essential truth of the system, or that are provable in the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means, that any conclusion that can be soundly and validly derived
>>>>>> from such an inference, is BY NECESSITY TRUE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem seems to be that you are willing to accept statements which
>>>>>> are not true, partially because you seem to think in natural languages,
>>>>>> which are inherently incomplete, and take statments ignoring their
>>>>>> context (which are logically part of them)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also eliminates the possibility of mathematical incompleteness
>>>>>>> because the lack of a provability connection from the premises to the
>>>>>>> conclusion simply means the argument is invalid.
>>>>>> But that isn't "Incompleteness". Incompleteness is that there exists
>>>>>> statements (not conclusions") that are True, but are NOT provable by a
>>>>>> finite series of logical conclusions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, a statment is "Analytically True" if there exist a chain of
>>>>>> reasoning (which can be infinite in length, since the chaim being finite
>>>>>> is NOT a requirement for truth) in the system from the basic truthmakers
>>>>>> of the system, to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provable means that there exists a finite chain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incompleteness says the system has some statements that the only chains
>>>>>> to them are infinte in length.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We take modern predicate logic (including HOL) and get rid of every
>>>>>>> unsound aspect on the basis that every conclusion must be a necessary
>>>>>>> consequence of its premises or the argument is invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That one single change may correct every divergence of predicate logic
>>>>>>> from correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which just shos you don't understand what anything means.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just about to brush up on all the brilliant writings of all cotton, but then global warming burned me to death.
>>>> In other words you don't have the words for any actual rebuttal.
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
>> I think that all Olcott's are related.
>> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
>> --
>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> I am an amateur astronomer, so this is the one I'm familiar with:
>
> William Tyler Olcott (January 11, 1873–July 6, 1936) was an American lawyer and amateur astronomer.
> Born
> January 11, 1873
> Norwich, Connecticut
> Died
> July 6, 1936 (aged 63)
> New Hampshire
>

I think that all Olcotts are related even when that spell their name
Allcock. The family coat of arms is the same as the one used by Jesus
college in England.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Jesus_College_%28Cambridge%29_shield.svg

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:

>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
>
> I think that all Olcott's are related.
> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
>

Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.

Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>
> >> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
> >
> > I think that all Olcott's are related.
> > https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
> >
> Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
>
> Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?

you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans

On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>>
>>>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
>>>
>>> I think that all Olcott's are related.
>>> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
>>>
>> Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
>> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
>>
>> Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
>
> you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans

So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a
follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"
in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a
follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> >>
> >>>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
> >>>
> >>> I think that all Olcott's are related.
> >>> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
> >>>
> >> Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
> >> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
> >>
> >> Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
> >
> > you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
> So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a
> follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"
> in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a
> follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"

it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:48:45 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > >> On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> > >>> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that all Olcott's are related.
> > >>> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
> > >>>
> > >> Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
> > >> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
> > >>
> > >> Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
> > >
> > > you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
> > So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a
> > follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"
> > in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a
> > follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"
> it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.

Not to mention wasting precious computer resources, which will be needed to solve the tipping point problem.

not to mention how these dialogues are instantly need anything one person declares is, it was good can easily be met by an entity from his conversation Lipponen

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:53:18 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:48:45 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > >> On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > >>> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that all Olcott's are related.
> > > >>> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
> > > >>>
> > > >> Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
> > > >> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
> > > >
> > > > you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
> > > So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a
> > > follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"
> > > in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a
> > > follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"
> > it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans..
> Not to mention wasting precious computer resources, which will be needed to solve the tipping point problem.
>
> not to mention how these dialogues are instantly need anything one person declares is, it was good can easily be met by an entity from his conversation Lipponen

now back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:56:46 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:53:18 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 10:48:45 AM UTC-5, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:47:31 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > On 8/12/23 8:14 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > >> On 8/11/23 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > >>> On 8/11/2023 12:45 PM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> are you any relation to that astronomy Olcott guy?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think that all Olcott's are related.
> > > > >>> https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Olcott_(founder_of_Hartford)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Have you actually studied that and have some evidence, or is this just
> > > > >> another of your "It seems like it must be" statements.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Do you actually have some research to connect you to Thomas?
> > > > >
> > > > > you use the indefinite thing you you you is indefinite I don't know who you're talking about you need to be specified you is not definite you keep using you and you should not do that because when you use you, you're not pointing at anything specific it's just Chinea so you need to do better riding and who are you anyway eat more pecans
> > > > So, you (Don) don't understand how Usenet works? My message was a
> > > > follow-up to a message by Olcott, which was quoted, so the pronoun "you"
> > > > in it most naturally refers to him, just as in this message (which is a
> > > > follow up to yours) it refers to "Don"
> > > it's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.
> > Not to mention wasting precious computer resources, which will be needed to solve the tipping point problem.
> >
> > not to mention how these dialogues are instantly need anything one person declares is, it was good can easily be met by an entity from his conversation Lipponen
> now back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself
And also you're getting the perfect post going, figuring that I'm going to respond to you, which I'm not.

On 8/12/23 11:48 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> t's so nice when you have complete strangers piss away their time on one
> another when they could be doing something useful like harvesting pecans.

Your presuming that this takes actual effort.

Most of the time I use replying to Olcott as a "palette cleansing"
between tasks, or when I need to take a break to organize thoughts.

On 8/12/23 11:56 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:

> now back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself

It has been mentioned to him before that he has failed the Halt Deciding
test.

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 11:17:05 AM UTC-5, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/12/23 11:56 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>
> > now back to the discussion of the Turing Halting problem, which unfortunately is never applied to the discussion itself
>
> It has been mentioned to him before that he has failed the Halt Deciding
> test.

mommy, I can hear the ICBMs coming in.

Oh no you can't darling , they're super sonic ; you can't hear them.

Oh mommy wait a minute . I'm a girl, I have the right to change my mind. I can't hear them coming in ; since I can't hear them coming in , that means they're coming in by what you just told me .

oh darling , I'm so proud of you ; you'll make a great logician!!!!