Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion
 of {linguistic truth}
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:48:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5f1023bb01bb3a4678d0398416e2081e1611d4bf@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb0lkb$1c1kh$2@dont-email.me> <vb1hdi$1feme$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4erg$2s0uc$1@dont-email.me> <vb6hv7$39dvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71fn$3b4ub$5@dont-email.me> <vbbm40$8k2u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbc9t5$bdtb$1@dont-email.me> <vbem5f$pont$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me> <vbh1n7$19hd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlv7$1c7u5$10@dont-email.me> <vbjq33$1shau$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbk8j9$1u1js$4@dont-email.me>
 <963deb8a36d48f5f8f47e795dff037cbfebe9486@i2pn2.org>
 <vbnh2a$2gv88$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:48:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1470041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbnh2a$2gv88$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8506
Lines: 192

On 9/9/24 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/8/2024 12:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/8/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:03:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 13:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 03:04:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remaining loophole is the lack of an exact definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "sufficient reason".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately sufficient reason is correct semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entailment from verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is "verified" facts: what is sufficient 
>>>>>>>>>>>> verification?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stipulated to be true is always sufficient:
>>>>>>>>>>> Cats are a know if animal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Insufficient for practtical purposes. You may stipulate that
>>>>>>>>>> nitroglycerine is not poison but it can kill you anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point is that <is> the way the linguistic truth actually 
>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has been 
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>> by DG Schwartz in 1985.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction
>>>>>>> yet unequivocal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a
>>>>>>> similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely
>>>>>>> based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical
>>>>>>> truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be
>>>>>>> verified as true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used the term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM
>>>>
>>>> Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used it 
>>>> before?
>>>> Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a
>>> new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning
>>> for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>>>
>>> *LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN*
>>> When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic
>>> meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in
>>> language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the
>>> True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist.
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott
>>>
>>>
>> If that is your claim, then a statement is Linguistically FALSE if 
>> there is NOT such a connection (verses there is a connection to its 
>> negation), since THAT is the definiton of the Truth Predicate of 
>> Tarski, it results in TRUE if the statement is True, or FALSE if the 
>> statement is either FALSE or not actually a truth bearer, and it is 
>> that later part that causes the problem.
>>
> 
> LP = "this sentence is not true"
> according to MY truth predicate
> ~True(LP) & ~True(~LP) MEANING NOT ALLOWED IN ANY FORMAL
> SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FREAKING BEATER OF TRUTH.

So, you admit that you system can't have a truth predicate per the 
required definition either.

Remember, True(L, x) if x is not a truth bearer must return FALSE, as it 
isn't true.

And if it is not a truth bearer, it can't be true, so if we can show it 
true, it couldn't have been a non-truthbearer.


> 
> This sentence is not true: "this sentence is not true"
> IS TRUE BECAUSE THE SECOND SENTENCE IS NOT A TRUTH BEARER.
> THIS CONFUSED THE HELL OUT OF TARSKI.

No, you have confused yourself, because you don't understand what Tarski 
is talking about, so you guessed and are insisting that your error mudt 
be right.

> 
> This sentence is not true: "a fish"
> IS TRUE BECAUSE THE SECOND SENTENCE IS NOT A TRUTH BEARER.
> 
>> The problem arises because if the language L can express a statement 
>> like:
>>
>> X is defined to be ~True(L, X)
>>
> 
> Proven to have an cycle in its evaluation sequence
> thus not a freaking truth bearer.

Then your True predicate is just broken.

As Tarski PROVED that the sentece was formable in the language, and thus 
must be evaluated by the predicate.

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.

> 
> Is "a fish" True? No
> Is "a fish" False? No
> 
>> Then if True(L, X) is false, then X, since it is the negation of that, 
>> must be TRUE, which leads to a contradiction as we have just shown 
>> that True(L, x) just returned FALSE for a TRUE statement.
>>
>> Note, that the major part of the proof, that you tend to overlook, is 
>> showing that in the system L, based on the minimal requirements 
>> specified, that such a statement CAN be expressed.
>>
>> You "Logic" tryies to say that it needs to "Reject" the statement, but 
>> "rejection" is not a possible result, BY DEFINITION, non-true 
>> statements are just false, even if they are non-sense.
>>
> 
> In other words you are too stupid to not reject
> an incoherent definition.
> 

No, YOU are the one that is too stupid to not rehect an incoherent 
definition.

That given the assumption that a Truth predicate exists, Tarski proves 
that a system with the defined and somewhat minimal requrements (to be 
really usable) can form the statement

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========