Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method (agreement)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 08:46:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v2nhck$1pbjk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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> <v2m6i9$1i4sg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2m9q9$1qo0t$3@i2pn2.org> <v2me5h$1j7n1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2n9bl$1qo0t$7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:47:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba728845a682305e7e13b3854d529db3";
	logging-data="1879668"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18s0ftF0Ip4v9DJ4IeGXVQH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cH0LxojIdxAN+fHz4OvTxgccHSU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2n9bl$1qo0t$7@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4804

On 5/23/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/22/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *You are just not paying close enough attention again*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When p defined as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>   True(L,p)  is false
>>>>>>   True(L,~p) is false
>>>>>> ~True(L,~p) is true
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x := y means x is defined to be another name for y
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so since p is DEFINED to be ~True(L, p), which since True(L, 
>>>>> p) is false, must be true, that means that you are claiming that
>>>>> T(L, <a statement that has been shown to be true>) is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus your True predicat is just broken.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's use the more intuitive name lp so that we incorporate by
>>>> reference (instead of ignore) all of the material about the liar 
>>>> paradox.
>>>>
>>>> lp := ~True(L, lp)
>>>
>>> But that isn't the traditional "Liar's Paradix", because it is not 
>>> normally stated in terms of a Truth Predicate.
>>>
>>> The "Liar's paradox" is a statement that asserts that it is false.
>>>
>>> That is NOT what the above statement says, or even means.
>>>
>>
>> The Strengthened Liar Paradox (also called the Strong Liar Paradox)
>> can begin with a Strengthened Liar Sentence such as: This sentence
>> is not true,
>> https://iep.utm.edu/liar-paradox/#SH1a
>>
>> I spent 20,000 hours on this since 2004 and you glance at a couple
>> of my words and guess that I must be wrong.
> 
> Which was wasted since you didn't learn what a True Predicate is.
> 

I am correct and you simply do not understand that I am correct,
yet most of the greatest experts in the field are not even aware
that there is something definitely wrong with the Liar Paradox.

On 5/23/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
 >
 > By the usual rules a definition of a symbol in terms
 > of itself is not an acceptable definition.
 >

lp := ~True(L, lp) expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))

One can either reject it as a syntax error or let it go ahead
and infinitely expand and reject it as a semantic error. Or
one can reject is as a self-contradictory epistemological antinomy
having no truth value thus a type mismatch error for any formal
system of bivalent logic.

Most of the greatest experts in the field are not even sure that there
is anything wrong with it the Liar Paradox. None of the experts in the
field formalize the Liar Paradox correctly.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer