Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Fri, 17 May 2024 22:40:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v294e1$1a3tk$22@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1rggn$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> <v26fe6$18ad7$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v26g9v$1vvq8$2@dont-email.me> <v26gtr$18ad7$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v26ie2$20f8s$1@dont-email.me> <v26iuo$18ad7$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v26k8e$20nen$1@dont-email.me> <v27fpj$18ad7$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v27pp4$27tqp$1@dont-email.me> <v28v14$1a3tk$19@i2pn2.org>
 <v28vsb$2f45l$1@dont-email.me> <v290i2$1a3tk$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v2937a$2jfci$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 02:40:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1380276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2937a$2jfci$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8463
Lines: 207

On 5/17/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>>>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true) 
>>>> returns false, which says your logic system is broken by being 
>>>> inconsistant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
>>> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
>>> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
>>
>> In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
>>
> 
> It does have an immutably correct notion of {true on the basis
> of meaning} and rejects finite strings as not truth bearers on
> this basis.

Nope, because you said the value of "true" doesn't exist, truth is 
dependent on having something to make true.

> 
>> The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said that 
>> p wasn't true.
>>
> 
> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*

Yes, which makes True(L, a sentence proven to be true) to be false.

Thus, it is inconsistant.

Or we can use the arguement that since

p is ~True(L, p) which is false that p is alse ~True(L, ~True(L, p) 
which, since True(L, p) is "established" to be false, and thus 
~True(L,p) to be true, we can say that True(L, ~True(L, p) must be true 
and thus p, being not that is false.

So, we can prove that p is both false and true, and thus your system is 
BY DEFINITION inconsistant.

> 
>>>
>>> This sentence is true.
>>> What is it true about?
>>> It is true about being true.
>>> What is it is true about being true about?
>>>
>>> This turns out to be Kripke ungrounded yet Kripke did
>>> not know the algorithmic basis for Kripke grounding.
>>>
>>> *Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke* (1975)
>>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
>>>>> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT 
>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that 
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All that you pointed out is that you still don't understand
>>> the Truth Teller paradox.
>>
>> No, YOU don't understand that True MUST be a truth beared, or you are 
>> just a liar that your system has a Truth Predicate.
>>
>>
>> Remember, we started with
>>
>> p in L is ~True(L, p)
>> you say True(L, p) is false
> 
> *No you said this* (Socratic question)

No, YOU said it first, and I agreed.

What else are you going to make it?

(Socratic reply question)

> 
>> thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the falseness 
>> of True(L, p)
>>
> 
> We test p for True or False if neither it is tossed out on its ass.
> 
> It is like we are testing if a person is hungry:
> We ask is the person dead? The answer is yes and then you
> say what if they are still hungry?
> 

RED HERRINBG.

Since you have claimed that True(L, p) is false, by the stipulated 
definition of p, it MUST be a true statement, and thus you have 
stiplated that True(L, <a statement proven to be true>) turns out to be 
false (since that statement IS p), and thus you system is

>> Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
>>
> 
> We sure as Hell cannot correctly say that.

Why not?
> 
> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*

In other words, you system doesn't allow the assignement of a statement 
to have a refenece to itself, which is one of the criteria in Tarski.

> 
>> ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
> 
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is not true")) is true
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is true")) is true

Nope, "This statment is true" is different then the statement:

P, in L, is defined as ~True(L, P)

It it just

P in L is defined as "P is not true."

The difference is the statement P is not true has the possibility of 
being a non-truth bearer, but the predicate True(L, p) doesn't have that 
option.

> 
>>
>> Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the 
>> outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation 
>> of a false statement)
> 
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true

Yep.

> 
>>  and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we can show that p 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========