Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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
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:
References:
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:
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 ==========