Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:20:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3065282f29048f9296127a774e5431cb6177c241@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@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> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrjqv6$1l2bf$6@dont-email.me> <vrmgqq$4mfv$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrmkdu$5bpl$5@dont-email.me> <vrojnv$22boq$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrpjop$2qbhf$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:20:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1476952"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5116
Lines: 59

Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 13:26:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/23/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-22 15:19:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 3/22/2025 9:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-21 13:52:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-21 03:49:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> The set of all human general knowledge that can be expressed using
>>>>>>> language has no undecidability or undefinability.
>>>>>> Of course it has. Meanings of the words "undecidability" and
>>>>>> "undefinability" and related words are a part of human knowledge,
>>>>>> and so are Gödel's completeness and incopleteness theorems as well
>>>>>> as Tarski's undefinability theorem.
>>>>> My system has no undecidability or undefinability itself yet can
>>>>> explain these issues with inferior systems.
>>>> That is not proven. Nor is proven that your system is consistent.
>>>> Nor that your system exists.
>>> The definition of the set of every element of human general knowledge
>>> that can be expressed using language prevents inconsistency,
>>> incompleteness and undecidability within this set.
>> It prevents completeness.
> The set of human general knowledge that can be expressed using language
> is ALWAYS complete by definition.
Last I heard, we didn't know everything.

>> There are expressions that could be elements of human general knowledge
>> but aren't.
>> But human general knowledge is not a theory because there is no way to
>> know about every expressible claim whether its known to be true.
> We can imagine a single formal system that contains every element of the
> set of human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
It won't contain every truth, though.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.