Ontology:Q29,49

2949. [MX] (pronounced [MX])No proposition has a binary True or False answer 1:(-)1:(-)1

Core characteristics

item type

S2 (C (pronounced C)) 1:(-)1:(-)1

[P] (pronounced [P]) label [string] (L)

[MX] (pronounced [MX])No proposition has a binary True or False answer 1:(-)1:(-)1

E:NonBinaryLogicProposition

[P] (pronounced [P]) alias (en) [string]

No proposition has a binary truth value

No proposition has a binary True or False value

Propositions generally should not have a binary True or False value

The way to fix logic is to replace binary outcomes with sheer tests of consistency

QID references [Item] 1:(-)1:(-)1

--

field, scope, or group [Item]

non-binary logic (proposed; MX) 1:(-)1:(-)1

sub-case of [Item]

--

case of [Item]

--

super-case of [Item]

--

topic or subject [Item] (TS)

non-binary truth value

prototype notes

you don't fully break out of the Gödel trap this way because practically nothing ever could do that anyway. that part is not what matters. ideally the point of logic isn't to derive facts about reality in a vacuum but instead to perform a basic sanity test of whether statements you already have could possibly be correct or are almost definitely wrong. arguably, that is the thing that logic actually excels at even as it is inappropriate for many other things

Components

model combines claims

--

Use in thesis portals

appears in work [Item]

--

Wavebuilder combinations

[P] (pronounced [P]) Wavebuilder (pronounced Wavebuilder): forms result [Item]

--

along with [Item]

--

forming from [Item]

--

--

--