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: The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
 between finite strings
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:58:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <635183f2b74e63988d2208af7f97a25c62195dea@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb8ku7$3m85g$2@dont-email.me> <vc1910$rkci$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc1ioa$tcfb$3@dont-email.me> <vc3hb8$1cgbd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc44vt$1ge14$1@dont-email.me> <vc662i$22r9n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc74cf$2948m$1@dont-email.me> <vc8o7j$2nsv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc96eo$2qm11$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 22:58:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2328811"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vc96eo$2qm11$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5889
Lines: 125

On 9/16/24 7:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is related to*
>>>>>>>>> Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Yet equally applies to formal languages*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
>>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
>>>>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
>>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything 
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
>>>>>>> statement which is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary 
>>>>>> theorem means
>>>>>> that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the 
>>>>>> elementary theorems
>>>>>
>>>>> a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary 
>>>>> theorems.
>>>>>
>>>>>> or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a 
>>>>>> string is a
>>>>>> member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary 
>>>>>> theorems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of these relations between finite strings are
>>>>>>> elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
>>>>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
>>>>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
>>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems
>>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
>>>>
>>>> There are no elementary theorems of English
>>>
>>> There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
>>> this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
>>> I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
>>
>> They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions
>> of claims that that are not language specific.
>>
>>> It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
>>> never had any inherent meaning.
>>
>> Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the
>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
>>
> 
> Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
> same caveman grunt.

I guess you don't understand linguistics.

> 
> There was point point in time when words came into
> existence.

Rigbt, and before they had a symbolic written form.

> 
>>> When one realizes that
>>> every other human language does this differently then
>>> this is easier to see. {cats are animals} == 貓是動物
>>
> 
> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
> 
>> Words are often different in other languages (though e.g. Swedish "cat"
>> or Maltese "qattus" are not very different). Variations of meanings at
>> least for this word tend to be smaller than variations within a single
>> language.
>>
> 
> 
> 
>