TonesInDeepFreeze

There's only one.

I noted the first place in your original post that you spouted nonsense. Now you've revised. If I'm in the mood, I'll give you a second chance. That i...

I don't know what that emoji means. I take it though that it doesn't indicate anything substantive.

Just look at the truth table. Anyway, you didn't use RAA.

Pretty much, you proved P from the premise ~~P. Congratulations. And your point is?

I'll use '*' instead of the overbar. 0.89*1 is not defined. There is no real number that has an infinite decimal expansion but with a final entry. You...

I agreed that existence predicates are handled in systems other than modal logic. And I'm not claiming that every version of modal logic in basic form...

But modal logic is the more common one to study than all the others combined. (That's not an argument that modal logic is "better" or anything like th...

Yes, for any rational being it is not plausible that for all q we have Pq -> ~q. And that 'but' is not going refute that it is not the case that for a...

"I'm the only one here who is right. Everyone else is wrong. I have an open mind. They don't". Thus spake the crank.

Just to be clear, I don't propose that.

It's simple that the poster is nuts to think that "Possibly P" implies "Not P".

I don't expect to achieve anything other than giving a simple starting point, since there had been confusion in the thread. Of course not. Whatever mo...

Of course not. (1) AxEy y=x is a theorem, but I have never seen Ey y=x in FOL= as a definiens for Exists(x). It would be pointless. (2) My point is th...

You are talking with a poster not capable of making sense.

A poster was quoted, "Possibility is defined as "not necessary", and something is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds." It should not be ov...

I should have said, "we move to modal logic of some other appropriate system more involved than mere first order logic". Of course there is no limitat...

That makes it appear that I said that we can't expect that posts have good outcomes, etc. But what I posted: That is to say that I don't expect that o...

'utterance' means speaking out loud. Or do you have a different sense in mind?

Yes, "G |= F" means G semantically entails F; and "G |- F" means G proves F. But, due to completeness and soundness, G |= F iff G |-F. So you don't ad...

You didn't use them in the proof. The semantic turnstile as opposed to the proof turnstile is not important in this context. You don't even need any t...

Yes, after I audited both your original and revised arguments. Of course, I have no problem with emending your argument again now. Since "proposition"...

Truth is semantic. My point is that you are missing the premise: Ax(Tx -> Px)

Without claiming that you do or don't commit to the example as being of a substantive theory (though literally you did say that, it's reasonable to ta...

My mistake: The logic is not correct. Line 3 (whether original or reviesd) is a non sequitur. 1. Tq <-> p ... premise 2. Tq -> ExTx ... EG 3. ExTx -> ...

'7+5=12' is true iff '7+5' is a theorem is the case because both sides of the biconditional are true. But that is not an instance of a substantial the...

There is one premise there: Tq <-> p Following that, I don't see a problem with the logic. But you use vacuous quantification with ExTq and ExPq So, t...

Of course it is. But in any "adequate" system, there are statements such that neither the statement nor its negation is derivable. So derivability doe...

Is that a proposed formulation somewhere? It doesn't work in ordinary mathematics. A sentence is either true or false but not both. And a sentence is ...

I added that modal logic is the main arena for this.

Yes, of course, we can do that. You can have the predicate 'is John', which is something different from just the name 'John'. Simplest example from ma...

Classical logic is about 140 years old. Yet again you shoot your mouth off not knowing what you're talking about.

"John exists" is not expressed in mere predicate logic. You need modal logic for it.

Yes, since Tarski's context is formal, he is not opining on the intensional senses. Back to the point: That unedifying tautology has nothing to do wit...

No, I did not. I said: 'P' is true iff P is a definition of 'is true'. Leaving off the quote marks is ruinous. As far as I can tell, you are unfamilia...

I'm not inferring that you are claiming that Tarski made that comment. I'm pointing out that the comment is irrelevant to understanding Tarski. Meanwh...

That's not how it works in the context of Tarski. Rather, 'is white' is an undivided unit.

Tarski mentioned no such pointless tautology.

Where did Tarski write that? The quote marks are crucial. 'P' is true iff P. It's a biconditional. Formal definitions are biconditionals. He's not say...

First, my point stands that you said the word 'true' is not in the paragraph you quoted, but you intentionally ignored that the words 'truth' or 'true...

It is remarkable that you say that. It is quite an example of willfully ignoring a mass of context. 'truth' or 'true' are mentioned 15 times in the se...

Here is my careful philosophical response: Bull. All you did there is argument by mere repeated assertion, as you ignored the rebuttals I've already g...

Yet you went on to ignorantly argue about it!: You don't get say that you don't want to argue about it, then argue about it anyway, then blame your in...

Wrong and contradicts what I've said about that, and contradicts the fact that I (unlike you) DO read in the philosophy of mathematics about different...

Well, you asked me. And, very likely you'll have the last word anyway, since I really am out of time for a while.

Absolutely I do not agree. '=' stands for equality. Period. So, now I have to give you a free lesson from the first chapter of Calculus 1. The infinit...

It's not an algorithm. It's not "generating" a set. It is a certain tuple. It's amazing to me that cranks are FULL of criticisms to mathematics but th...

From the axioms, we prove that there is a unique x such that x has no members: E!xAy ~y e x Then we define : 0 = x <-> Ay ~ y e x. And, informally, we...

Mark that as one of the very rare times a light goes on in a crank's mind. Alas, though, even when it happens, the crank will later double back to com...

WRONG. Yours is the typical claim of someone who knows not even the first week of Calculus 1. An infinite summation is a LIMIT, not a final term in th...