On 10/06/2026 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 2:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 1:00 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 09:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 11:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 06:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 7:50 AM, Blaine wrote:
olcott wrote:
When we assume that the Liar Paradox is not incoherent
then his proof succeeds. Likewise when we assume that
"cats are dogs" then "cats bark" is entailed.
Not certain if you realized it but this is a math group. Let's >>>>>>>>> dispense with talking about barking cats & talk about math.
Isomophisms are analogies.
No they're accounts of "relations".
Yet another retro-finitist crankety troll sock-puppet
with a howler-troll fallacy blowing in the wind.
Many of the easily-fooled and readily-satisfied variety
have such sorts of premature reductionisms that seem to
offer ready avenues that are facile es descencis.
Structure in model theory vis-a-vis accounts in language
of the loose sort like the analogy vis-a-vis "language
geometry" make for that dictionaries may have more than
one entry while they are yet the same word.
Get bent, bot.
Tarski is also a sort of retro-finitist reductionist.
Do you ever have any substantial original thought that
does not conform to some conventional textbook view?
I'm a canonical dogmatic doctrinal researcher in
a paleo-classical post-modern account with a thorough
account of reason and super-classical reasoning,
not an ingrate.
It's hard to say what would be "original" thought, though,
for example, I introduce something like an "original" as
an "originary" analysis for mathematics like "the identity dimension". >>>>>
Attaining to "Truth" is a usual account of seeking wisdom,
then that accounts of "Foundations" have very, very strong
requirements for their satisfaction of being thorough.
So bottom line you very carefully with exacting precision
memorize the work of others. You never ever consider the
possibility that there might be a fundamentally different
approach?
This is (first of all) a yes or no question.
So, the "paleo-classical post-modern" as "super-classical
super-modern" makes for that historicity, metaphysics,
and monism are present.
Anybody has their own philosophy and psychology.
No, your reading comprehension is deficient.
You did fail to elaborate the details of your unique
alternatives to the textbook views of foundations.
If you can't explain it in simple words that proves
that you do not sufficiently understand it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
How about 200+ hours of unscripted lectures?
"Axiomless Principled Thea-theory"
On 10/6/2026 6:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 2:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 1:00 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 09:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 11:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/06/2026 06:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2026 7:50 AM, Blaine wrote:
olcott wrote:Isomophisms are analogies.
When we assume that the Liar Paradox is not incoherent
then his proof succeeds. Likewise when we assume that
"cats are dogs" then "cats bark" is entailed.
Not certain if you realized it but this is a math group. Let's >>>>>>>>>> dispense with talking about barking cats & talk about math. >>>>>>>>>
No they're accounts of "relations".
Yet another retro-finitist crankety troll sock-puppet
with a howler-troll fallacy blowing in the wind.
Many of the easily-fooled and readily-satisfied variety
have such sorts of premature reductionisms that seem to
offer ready avenues that are facile es descencis.
Structure in model theory vis-a-vis accounts in language
of the loose sort like the analogy vis-a-vis "language
geometry" make for that dictionaries may have more than
one entry while they are yet the same word.
Get bent, bot.
Tarski is also a sort of retro-finitist reductionist.
Do you ever have any substantial original thought that
does not conform to some conventional textbook view?
I'm a canonical dogmatic doctrinal researcher in
a paleo-classical post-modern account with a thorough
account of reason and super-classical reasoning,
not an ingrate.
It's hard to say what would be "original" thought, though,
for example, I introduce something like an "original" as
an "originary" analysis for mathematics like "the identity
dimension".
Attaining to "Truth" is a usual account of seeking wisdom,
then that accounts of "Foundations" have very, very strong
requirements for their satisfaction of being thorough.
So bottom line you very carefully with exacting precision
memorize the work of others. You never ever consider the
possibility that there might be a fundamentally different
approach?
This is (first of all) a yes or no question.
So, the "paleo-classical post-modern" as "super-classical
super-modern" makes for that historicity, metaphysics,
and monism are present.
Anybody has their own philosophy and psychology.
No, your reading comprehension is deficient.
You did fail to elaborate the details of your unique
alternatives to the textbook views of foundations.
If you can't explain it in simple words that proves
that you do not sufficiently understand it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
How about 200+ hours of unscripted lectures?
"Axiomless Principled Thea-theory"
I don't even need a whole paragraph to sum up
the essence of my work.
The entire body of general knowledge expressed
in language can be fully encoded as two types
of relations between finite strings:
(a) Stipulated relations
(b) Semantic entailment specified syntactically.
It did take me 28 years to distill it as that essence.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,142 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 95:11:06 |
| Calls: | 14,704 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,497 |
| D/L today: |
3,004 files (990M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,551,712 |