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 18:09:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <64f12897930df51566aada9744e77a09ad83dab0@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$6@dont-email.me>
 <0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvnvv$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:09:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2871508"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vsjn88$26s7s$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3512
Lines: 40

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, and for those 
to be false it means some assumption that went into them must be false, 
and the only assumption, other than the definition of the logic system 
that he used, was that a Truth Predicate exists.

Thus, all you are doing is confirming his conclusion, and proving that 
you just don't understand how logic actual works.