Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v26fe6$18ad7$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1mpsh$lbo4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ms2o$1rkit$1@dont-email.me> <v1prtb$2jtsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qjb1$2ouob$2@dont-email.me> <v1qnfv$2q0t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qtnk$2rdui$2@dont-email.me> <v1qvku$qvg3$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r0fg$2rva6$1@dont-email.me> <v1r1ci$qvg3$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1r276$2shtf$1@dont-email.me> <v1r932$qvg3$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rdr5$30gkq$1@dont-email.me> <v1rggn$qvg3$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rhff$31ege$1@dont-email.me> <v1rhqr$qvg2$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rj05$31n8h$2@dont-email.me> <v1rkt4$qvg2$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1rlj7$324ln$2@dont-email.me> <v1rn85$qvg3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v1s25g$38fdl$1@dont-email.me> <v1ssv3$qvg3$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ta68$3hc9t$1@dont-email.me> <v1ub9v$v37v$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ugp1$3tnr6$1@dont-email.me> <v1uie1$v37v$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v23p6n$17u5o$1@dont-email.me> <v23ppq$15g3d$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v23qcc$17u5o$2@dont-email.me> <v23ra5$15fgo$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v242un$1cdll$1@dont-email.me> <v24qsq$16nbi$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v253g6$1jo3l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 02:29:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1321383"; 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: <v253g6$1jo3l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7552
Lines: 157

On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth 
>>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and 
>>>>>>>>>> ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to 
>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>  > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
>>>>>>>  > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to 
>>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to 
>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>  > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>  > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) 
>>>>>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make 
>>>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time
>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means 
>>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>
>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
>>>>>
>>>>>   True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>
>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) 
>>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the 
>>>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means 
>>>> your system is broken.
>>>>
>>>
>>>   True(L, true) is false
>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>
>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. 
> 
> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
> is true by definition and we would be wrong.

But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.

> 
> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
> It has to be true about something other than itself.

true IS the fundamental truth object.

It isn't a "sentence" it is a truth value.

You are just showing you don't actually understand how logic works.

> 
> "This sentence has five words."
> Is true about the number of words that it has.
> True(English, "This sentence has five words.") is true
> 
> "a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is
> paradoxical or ungrounded."


So, you thing truth is just paradoxical or ungrounded?

I guess that throws a wrench in your idea of a universal system to 
determine what is true. If true might not be true, what can we say about 
anything.

> 
> *Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke*
> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
> 
> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
> True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving
> operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
> stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is
> defined as True(L,~x). Copyright 2022,2023,2024 PL Olcott
> 
>> The value of the value true IS true.
>>
>> true is the logic value of statement tmentrs.
>>
>> "This statment is true" is the truth teller paradox, not the logic 
>> value true.
>>
> "This sentence is true"
> is correctly formalized as TT is defined as True(TT)
> 
> "This sentence is true"
> What is it true about?
> It is true about being true.
> What is it true about being true about?
> It true about being true about being true...
> 
> 
>> This goes back to the ambiguity of trying to discuss logic with words.
>