Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 21:56:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 370 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 04:57:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5f52f96f067406075e702eab09af4a"; logging-data="442826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/v2+3b31P0aZoo3ucit/WN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:w7sT6lCsILx7WpduhIy4Q0XPXaA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 14364 On 5/20/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/20/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/20/24 2:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/19/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/19/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/19/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> p = ~True(L,p) // p is not a truth bearer because its refers to >>>>>> itself >>>>> >>>>> Then ~True(L,p) can't be a truth beared as they are the SAME >>>>> STATEMENT, just using different "names". >>>> >>>> >>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> p = ~True(L,p) Truthbearer(L,p) is false >>>> q = ~True(L,p) Truthbearer(L,q) is true >>> >>> Irrelvent. >>> >>> If Truthbearer(L, p) is FALSE, and since p is just a NAME for the >>> statement ~True(L, p), that means that True(L. p) is not a truth >>> bearer and True has failed to be the required truth predicate. >>> >> >> That is the same thing as saying that >> True(English, "this sentence is not true") is false >> proves that True(L,x) is not a truthbearer. > > Nope, why do you say that? > > What logic are you even TRYING to use to get there? > > I think you don't understand what defining a label to represent a > statement means. > I did not said the above part exactly precisely to address your objection. p is defined as ~True(L,p) LP is defined as "this sentence is not true" in English. Thus True(L,p) ≡ True(English,LP) and Thus True(L,~p) ≡ True(English,~LP) >> >>> If you are defining your "=" symbol to be "is defined as" so the left >>> side is now a name for the right side, you statement above just >>> PROVES that your logic system is inconsistant as the same expression >>> (with just different names) has contradicory values. >>> >>> You are just showing you utter lack of understanding of the >>> fundamentals of Formal Logic. >>> >> >>     ϕ(x) there is a sentence ψ such that S ⊢ ψ ↔ ϕ⟨ψ⟩. >> The sentence ψ is of course not self-referential in a strict sense, >> but mathematically it behaves like one. >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/#ConSemPar > > So? Can you show that it is NOT true? or is it just that you don't want > it to be true, so you assume it isn't? > defined as is the way to go. >> >> No what it shows is that formal logic gets the wrong answer because >> formal logic does not evaluate actual self-reference. > > No, you don't understand what you are talking about. > Formal logic NEVER EVER gets to epistemological antinomies ARE NOT TRUTH BEARERS >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Just like (with context) YOU can be refered to a PO, Peter, Peter >>>>> Olcott or Olcott, and all the reference get to the exact same >>>>> entity, so any "name" for the express >>>>> >>>>>> True(L,p)  is false >>>>>> True(L,~p) is false >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So since True(L, p) is false, then ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>> >>>>>> ~True(True(L,p)) is true and is referring to the p that refers >>>>>> to itself it is not referring to its own self. >>>>>> >>>>>> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE* >>>>> >>>>> Why add the indirection? p is the NAME of the statement, which >>>>> means exactly the same thing as the statement itself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> p = ~True(L,p) >>>> does not mean that same thing as True(L, ~True(L,p)) >>>> The above ~True(L, p) has another ~True(L,p) embedded in p. >>>> >>>>> Is the definition of an English word one level LESS of indirection >>>>> than the word itself? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This sentence is not true("This sentence is not true") is true. >>> >>> Right, that is a sentence about another sentence (that is part of >>> itself) >>> >> >> Likewise with ~True(L, ~True(L, p)) where p is defined as ~True(L, p) >> > > So? Yes ~True(L, ~True(L, p)) IS a different sentence than ~True(L, p) > even with p defined a ~True(L, p), BUT they are logically connected as > the first follows as a consequence of the second and the definition of p. > >>> p defined as ~True(L, p) isn't a sentence refering to ~True(L, p), it >>> is assigning a name to the sentence to allow OTHER sentences to refer >>> to it by name, >>> >> >> Yet when p refers to its own name this creates infinite recursion. >> > > So? What's wrong with that? Sure any programs that get stuck in infinite loops are a feature that everyone likes even when it means that payroll is two weeks late and you missed your mortgage payment. > Note, it is recursion that doesn't HAVE to > be followed. You seem to be stuck at counting the fingers level math, > while trying to talk about trigonometry. > Any expression "standing for some kind of infinite structure." CANNOT BE EVALUATED THUS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A TRUTH BEARER THUS A TYPE MISMATCH ERROR FOR EVERY SYSTEM OF BIVALENT LOGIC >>> >>>> >>>>> I don't think you understand what it means to define something. >>>>> >>>> >>>> x := y means x is defined to be another name for y >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========