Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:49:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7d0164a6001fc519a244b7ed4930d757b9bd7ac1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me> <vrj8nr$16c78$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:49:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1199593"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3068
Lines: 47

On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> It is stipulated that analytic knowledge is limited to the
>>>>> set of knowledge that can be expressed using language or
>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to elements
>>>>> of this set.
>>>>
>>>> Which just means that you have stipulated yourself out of all 
>>>> classical logic, since Truth is different than Knowledge. In a good 
>>>> logic system, Knowledge will be a subset of Truth, but you have 
>>>> defined that in your system, Truth is a subset of Knowledge, so you 
>>>> have it backwards.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True(X) always returns TRUE for every element in the set
>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>> It never gets confused by paradoxes.
>>
>> Not useful unless it returns TRUE for no X that contradicts anything
>> that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>>
> 
> I can't parse that.
>  > (a) Not useful unless
>  > (b) it returns TRUE for
>  > (c) no X that contradicts anything
>  > (d) that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>  >
> Because my system begins with basic facts and actual facts
> can't contradict each other and no contradiction can be
> formed by applying only truth preserving operations to these
> basic facts there are no contradictions in the system.
> 
> 

No, you system doesn't because you don't actually understand what you 
are trying to define.

"Human Knowledge" is full of contradictions and incorrect statements.

Adittedly, most of them can be resolved by properly putting the 
statements into context, but the problem is that for some statement, the 
context isn't precisely known or the statement is known to be an 
approximation of unknown accuracy, so doesn't actually specify a "fact".