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
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:46:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <409e61708a2c968890fa9034edc287f502363279@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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 21:46:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1466043"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrpjop$2qbhf$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12688
Lines: 238

On 3/23/25 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========