Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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, 29 Mar 2025 20:14:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6342c8b0b10d92685bfd44aac47e70a2615946e1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrh432$39r47$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrhami$3fbja$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> <vs0e9v$1cg8n$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs1fda$296sp$3@dont-email.me> <vs3b1d$3aoq$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs3iap$9lob$1@dont-email.me>
	<4def165aebe9e5753eeb66673c705370b247a7e3@i2pn2.org>
	<vs4utt$1c1ja$12@dont-email.me>
	<82344d9130ea950af2f0ff091a19265242b9608a@i2pn2.org>
	<vs6u85$39556$16@dont-email.me>
	<567c32439deb84febf4111f4bd0792a9538c1ba1@i2pn2.org>
	<vs902d$1fccq$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:14:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2228780"; 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: 3374
Lines: 38

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:28:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/25 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 5:33 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:44:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>>>>> The set of all general knowledge that can be expressed in language
>>>>> is a subset of all truth and only excludes unknown and unknowable.
>>>
>>>> Exactly, it doesn't include the unknown truths and ought to be called
>>>> Known(X). It is also contradictory since it gives NO both for
>>>> unknowns and their negation.
>>>>
>>> *The key defining aspect of knowledge is that it is true*
One of a sentence and its negation must be true.

>> Which has been the eternal debate, how can we tell if some "fact" we
>> have discovered is true.
>> In FORMAL LOGIC (which you just dismissed) truth has a solid
>> definition, and we can formally PROVE some statements to be true and
>> formally PROVE that some statements are just false, and thus such
>> statements CAN become truely established knowledge. There may also be
>> some statements we have not established yet (and maybe can never
>> establish in the system) which will remain as "unknown". That doesn't
>> mean the statements might not be true or false, just that we don't know
>> the answer yet.
>> 
> This can be incoherent unless complete semantics is fully integrated
> into the formal system. There is no way that applying ONLY truth
> preserving operations to basic facts can possibly result in
> undecidability.
> Only a valid concrete counter-example counts as a rebuttal, everything
> else counts as some sort of deception.
See Gödel 19whenever.

[LLM bullshit]
-- 
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.