Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 10:11:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4702eef1b0ace44f2a334894a27ead737d674fe6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
	<3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
	<vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me> <vrj8nr$16c78$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me>
	<7d0164a6001fc519a244b7ed4930d757b9bd7ac1@i2pn2.org>
	<vrl0tr$2na3e$1@dont-email.me>
	<cc75e1bdfa918eedc80a9230b0484acda284dc56@i2pn2.org>
	<vrl3fn$2nttr$3@dont-email.me>
	<8c4ea7f74348f8becac017bb33d6cab1b30f5e01@i2pn2.org>
	<vrl9ab$2t44r$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 10:11:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1253450"; 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: 4782
Lines: 74

Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that analytic knowledge is limited to the set
>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed using language or derived
>>>>>>>>>>> by applying truth preserving operations to elements of this
>>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which just means that you have stipulated yourself out of all
>>>>>>>>>> classical logic, since Truth is different than Knowledge. In a
>>>>>>>>>> good logic system, Knowledge will be a subset of Truth, but you
>>>>>>>>>> have defined that in your system, Truth is a subset of
>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge, so you have it backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True(X) always returns TRUE for every element in the set of
>>>>>>>>> general knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>>>>>>>> It never gets confused by paradoxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not useful unless it returns TRUE for no X that contradicts
>>>>>>>> anything that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't parse that.
>>>>>>>  > (a) Not useful unless (b) it returns TRUE for (c) no X that
>>>>>>>  > contradicts anything (d) that can be inferred from the set of
>>>>>>>  > general knowledge.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>> Because my system begins with basic facts and actual facts can't
>>>>>>> contradict each other and no contradiction can be formed by
>>>>>>> applying only truth preserving operations to these basic facts
>>>>>>> there are no contradictions in the system.
The liar sentence is contradictory.

>>>>>> No, you system doesn't because you don't actually understand what
>>>>>> you are trying to define.
>>>>>> "Human Knowledge" is full of contradictions and incorrect
>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>> Adittedly, most of them can be resolved by properly putting the
>>>>>> statements into context, but the problem is that for some
>>>>>> statement, the context isn't precisely known or the statement is
>>>>>> known to be an approximation of unknown accuracy, so doesn't
>>>>>> actually specify a "fact".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self evidence that for every element of the set of human
>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language that undecidability
>>>>> cannot possibly exist.
Not self-evident was Gödel's disproof of that.

>>>> SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove something.
>>>>
>>> When the proof is only syntactic then it isn't directly connected to
>>> any meaning.
>> 
>> But Formal Logic proofs ARE just "syntactic"


>>> When the body of human general knowledge has all of its semantics
>>> encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of Semantics then a proof
>>> means validation of truth.
>> Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not need to be
>> able to be validated.
> True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.
Not if X is unknown (but still true).

-- 
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.