Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method (agreement)
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 14:16:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 380
Message-ID: <v2qp30$2f6v4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v2a7p7$1ct7p$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2ad5l$2qlho$1@dont-email.me> <v2ae6h$1ct7p$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2am4p$2sdl6$1@dont-email.me> <v2amkc$1ct7p$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v2aobj$2sdma$5@dont-email.me> <v2ap1t$1ct7o$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v2b0jd$2u8oi$1@dont-email.me> <v2b17b$1ct7p$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v2b1dr$2u8oi$3@dont-email.me> <v2b9mo$1ecj9$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2bb6d$308qd$2@dont-email.me> <v2bc5o$1ecj9$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v2bsog$36vvc$1@dont-email.me> <v2cpb1$1g2n8$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2cvj6$3ddo5$1@dont-email.me> <v2d0qp$3dlkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2d1io$3dplm$1@dont-email.me> <v2evl5$3snmj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2g2dp$3ugq$1@dont-email.me> <v2hkkl$ggq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2ibhe$ksut$1@dont-email.me> <v2k8go$1363g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2l4hr$188bi$3@dont-email.me> <v2l87m$19619$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2lies$1b4kp$1@dont-email.me> <v2ltgl$1nrfv$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2m0m5$1dcof$2@dont-email.me> <v2m4lg$1qo0t$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2mtkj$1ln2l$1@dont-email.me> <v2ngi3$1or9h$8@dont-email.me>
 <v2pig4$28a91$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 21:16:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="853a48eea7a3e841565c364baea8e5bf";
	logging-data="2595812"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WZptyudYEiVsA1HrA7Yuy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aLEXmFYjEZ24fIxYnVoUkKRLgOk=
In-Reply-To: <v2pig4$28a91$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 18987

On 5/24/2024 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-23 13:32:51 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/23/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-23 01:03:44 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 11:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-22 15:55:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-21 14:36:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-20 17:48:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-19 14:15:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 9:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-19 13:41:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof, it seems because you don't know 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or false for every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence of a sequence of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of truth preserving operations 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that True, in making an answer of false, has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asserted that such a sequence exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> Can a sequence of true preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> to expressions that are stipulated to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> Can a sequence of true preserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >> to expressions that are stipulated to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be screened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *BEFORE THAT OCCURS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "filter" out expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PREDICATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth-bearer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and get an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-truth-bearers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an accurate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form a finite set of finite strings that are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic value of Boolean true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∨ True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∨ True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∨ True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∨ True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∨ True(L,~x))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, for a statement x to be false, it says that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there must be a sequence of truth perserving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations that derive ~x from, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So do you still say that for p defined in L as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~True(L, p) that your definition will say that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) will return false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========