Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:26 -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: Fri, 17 May 2024 02:29:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1321383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7552 Lines: 157 On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and >>>>>>>>>> ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>  > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>>  > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to >>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>  > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>>  > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>> nor false in English. >>>>> >>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>> >>>>>   True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>> >>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the >>>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means >>>> your system is broken. >>>> >>> >>>   True(L, true) is false >>> False(L, true) is false >>> >>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >>> >> >> >> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. > > We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" > is true by definition and we would be wrong. But the fundamental definition of true makes it true. > > "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. > A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... > It has to be true about something other than itself. true IS the fundamental truth object. It isn't a "sentence" it is a truth value. You are just showing you don't actually understand how logic works. > > "This sentence has five words." > Is true about the number of words that it has. > True(English, "This sentence has five words.") is true > > "a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is > paradoxical or ungrounded." So, you thing truth is just paradoxical or ungrounded? I guess that throws a wrench in your idea of a universal system to determine what is true. If true might not be true, what can we say about anything. > > *Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke* > https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf > > *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* > True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving > operations from finite string expressions of language that have been > stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is > defined as True(L,~x). Copyright 2022,2023,2024 PL Olcott > >> The value of the value true IS true. >> >> true is the logic value of statement tmentrs. >> >> "This statment is true" is the truth teller paradox, not the logic >> value true. >> > "This sentence is true" > is correctly formalized as TT is defined as True(TT) > > "This sentence is true" > What is it true about? > It is true about being true. > What is it true about being true about? > It true about being true about being true... > > >> This goes back to the ambiguity of trying to discuss logic with words. >