Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Why Tarski is wrong
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:19:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <57ef21c9900101bf5588efdfc781636eaf857204@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me> <vr8o53$3q301$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr962u$5hr9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 01:19:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="644415"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr962u$5hr9$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/17/25 8:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/17/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-17 01:50:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> By this criterion True("There is no truth predicate") is TRUE.
>>
> 
> The True(X) predicate only takes formalized Natural Language so that
> would  be rejected as false. LP := ~True(LP) would also be rejected
> as ~TRUE. The Principle of explosion does not apply truth preserving
> operations.
> 

ANd thus you admit that it isn't definable in the logic system that 
Tarski as looking at, as it wasn't a "Natural Language" logic system.

In part, because such things aren't actually Formal Logic Systems.

All you are doing is proving that you have been lying about working 
withing the parameters of the logic system described, and likely have no 
understand of what that actually means.