Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 07:48:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <198147436b2d4d12c8bcce16717b87193d61bb97@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr2l20$2d3ah$3@dont-email.me>
 <vr2m8j$2deaa$7@dont-email.me> <vr2mji$2d3ah$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr2qmt$2ij53$1@dont-email.me> <vr2r34$2d3ah$7@dont-email.me>
 <vr2tti$2kq04$3@dont-email.me> <vr3u4l$3idjs$2@dont-email.me>
 <vr4kkr$48ff$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:48:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1123542"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9777
Lines: 179

On 3/20/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/20/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/19/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/25 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/18/25 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/18/2025 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-17 15:40:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/25 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/25 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeeds except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not disprove Tarski.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He said that this is impossible and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(GC) == FALSE Cannot be proven true AKA unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(LP) == FALSE Not a truth-bearer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if x is what you are saying is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A True(X) predicate can be defined and Tarski never
>>>>>>>>>>> showed that it cannot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. Using a mathematical system like Godel, we can 
>>>>>>>>>> construct a statement x, which is only true it is the case 
>>>>>>>>>> that True(x) is false, but this interperetation can only be 
>>>>>>>>>> seen in the metalanguage created from the language in the 
>>>>>>>>>> proof, similar to Godel meta that generates the proof testing 
>>>>>>>>>> relationship that shows that G can only be true if it can not 
>>>>>>>>>> be proven as the existance of a number to make it false, 
>>>>>>>>>> becomes a proof that the statement is true and thus creates a 
>>>>>>>>>> contradiction in the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you can't understand that, or get confused by what is in 
>>>>>>>>>> the language, which your True predicate can look at, and in 
>>>>>>>>>> the metalanguage, which it can not, but still you make bold 
>>>>>>>>>> statements that you can not prove, and have been pointed out 
>>>>>>>>>> to be wrong, just shows how stupid you are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True(X) only returns TRUE when a a sequence of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations can derive X from the set of basic
>>>>>>>>>>> facts and returns false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, but needs to do so even if the path to x is infinite in 
>>>>>>>>>> length.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This never fails on the entire set of human general
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't a logic system, so you are just proving your 
>>>>>>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, "The Entire set of Human General Knowledge" does not 
>>>>>>>>>> contain the contents of Meta-systems like Tarski uses, as 
>>>>>>>>>> there are an infinite number of them possible, and thus to 
>>>>>>>>>> even try to express them all requires an infinite number of 
>>>>>>>>>> axioms, and thus your system fails to meet the requirements. 
>>>>>>>>>> Once you don't have the meta- systems, Tarski proof can create 
>>>>>>>>>> a metasystem, that you system doesn't know about, which 
>>>>>>>>>> creates the problem statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not fooled by pathological self-reference or
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is, because it can't detect all forms of such 
>>>>>>>>>> references.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, even if it does detect it, what answer does True(x) 
>>>>>>>>>> produce when we have designed (via a metalanguage) that the 
>>>>>>>>>> statement x in the language will be true if and only if ! 
>>>>>>>>>> True(x), which he showed can be done in ANY system with 
>>>>>>>>>> sufficient power, which your universal system must have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just showing how little you understand what you 
>>>>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We need no metalanguage. A single formalized natural
>>>>>>>>> language can express its own semantics as connections
>>>>>>>>> between expressions of this same language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A nice formal language has the symbols and syntax of the first 
>>>>>>>> order logic
>>>>>>>> with equivalence and the following additional symbols:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not talking about a trivially simple formal
>>>>>>> language. I am talking about very significant
>>>>>>> extensions to something like Montague grammar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The language must be expressive enough to fully
>>>>>>> encode any and all details of each element of the
>>>>>>> entire body of human general knowledge that can
>>>>>>> be expressed using language. Davidson semantics
>>>>>>> provides another encoding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But "encoding" knowledge, isn't a logic system.
>>>>> Unless you bother to pay attention to the details
>>>>> of how this of encoded.
>>>>
>>>> But "Encoded Knowledge" isn't a logic system. PERIOD. BYU 
>>>> DEFINITION. That would just be a set of axioms. Note, Logic system 
>>>> must also have a set of rules of relationships and how to manipulate 
>>>> them, 
>>>
>>> Yes stupid I already specified those 150 times.
>>> TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS.
>>>
>>>> and that needs more that just expressing them as knowledge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> NOT AT ALL DUMB BUNNY, for all the expressions
>>> that are proved completely true entirely on the basis of
>>> their meaning expressed in language they only need a
>>> connection this semantic meaning to prove that they
>>> are true.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the problem is that most of what we call "Human Knowledge" 
>>>>>> isn't logically defined truth, but is just "Emperical Knowledge", 
>>>>>> for which we 
>>>>>
>>>>> The set of human knowledge that can be expressed
>>>>> in language provides the means to compute True(X).
>>>>
>>>> Of course not, as then True(x) just can't handle a statement whose 
>>>> truth is currently unknown, which it MUST be able to handle
>>>>
>>>
>>> It employs the same algorithm as Prolog:
>>> Can X be proven on the basis of Facts?
>>
>> And thus you just admitted that your system doesn't even QUALIFY to be 
>> the system that Tarski is talking about.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand that fact, because apparently you can't 
>> actually understand any logic system more coplicated than what Prolog 
>> can handle.
>>
> 
> This concise specification is air-tight.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========