Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:13:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <56575769e809126808b9293b94e7dde583539b08@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me> <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me> <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me>
 <0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvnvv$ke3p$1@dont-email.me> <vs0egm$1cl6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs1f7j$296sp$2@dont-email.me> <vs3ad6$2o1a$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4sjd$1c1ja$8@dont-email.me> <vs63o2$2nal3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6v2l$39556$17@dont-email.me> <vs8hia$13iam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs8uoq$1fccq$2@dont-email.me> <vsb4in$14lqk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsb9d5$19ka5$1@dont-email.me> <vsdlq8$3shbn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsemub$th5g$4@dont-email.me> <vsg1gh$2ehsf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsh9ko$3mdkb$3@dont-email.me> <vsj0sn$1h0sm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjn88$26s7s$5@dont-email.me>
 <64f12897930df51566aada9744e77a09ad83dab0@i2pn2.org>
 <vskotr$378kj$6@dont-email.me>
 <3e66396147f21a4fff87b8bd36612fe3d1fe72ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vskthv$378kj$16@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:13:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2898202"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vskthv$378kj$16@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4072
Lines: 63

On 4/2/25 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/2/25 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2025 5:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/25 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2025 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-01 18:00:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2025 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-31 18:29:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-30 11:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have never expressed any disagreement with the starting 
>>>>>>>>>> points of
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski's proof. You have ever claimed that any of Tarski's 
>>>>>>>>>> inferences
>>>>>>>>>> were not truth preserving. But you have claimed that the last 
>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>> these truth preservin transformation has produced a false 
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE to specify True(X) ∧ ~Provable(X)
>>>>>>>>> (what Tarski proved) when-so-ever True(X) ≡ Provable(X).
>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tarski's proof was not about provability. Gödel had already proved
>>>>>>>> that there are unprovable true sentences. Tarski's work is about
>>>>>>>> definability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>> Step (3) is self-contradictory, thus his whole proof fails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant. As Traski clearly points out, (3) can be derived from 
>>>>>> (1) and
>>>>>> (2) with a truth preserving transformation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) is false, thus his whole proof is dead.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if (3) is false, then one of (1) or (2) must be false, 
>>>
>>> (1) is merely a false assumption that stands on its own.
>>
>> No, (1) is the result of a previous proof.
>>
> 
> Prove that. I can prove otherwise. PUT UP OR SHUT UP
> 

The paragraph before that he says:

> In accordance with the first
> part of Th. I we can obtain ...

That shows that he is building that statement from his previous proof.

So, prove him wrong or PUT UP OR SHUT UP.