Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 13:17:54 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 17:17:55 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1575657"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 14353 Lines: 324 On 5/19/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote: > 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? >>>> >>> >>> It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: >>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") >>> >> >> >> Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, >> but by its definition, True(L, x) can not. >> > > True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. > when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. So, x being DEFINED to be a certain sentence doesn't make x to have the same meaning as the sentence itself? What does it mean to define a name to a given sentence, if not that such a name referes to exactly that sentence? > > ~True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. > when x is defined as ~True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. Again, what does "Defined as" mean to you? > > Compared to most of the rest of the world including leading > experts in this field you are doing quite well with this. > > One of the top experts in the field of truthmaker maximalism > is not even sure that "This sentence is not true" is not > a truth bearer. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#Max > This means that you are ahead of the leading experts in the field. > >> Maybe your problem is you just forgot to learn the meaning of the key >> words in the things you want to talk about. >> >>>> That means that the predicate establishes that there IS a seriers of >>>> truth perservion operations that derive the expreson ~True(L, p). >>>> >>> >>> You keep confusing: >>> This sentence is not true. >>> with >>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true". >>> I have spent 20,000 hours on this YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE. >> >> I have been using NEITHER of those sentences, only YOU have in your >> confusion. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========