Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 07:48:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <80ec227a130044328fe6f7bcf88bb2df0e681b0d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me>
 <9019fa42001eb9126ec554cf4d2cff1e81b206f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vrii26$f35v$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:48:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1123542"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrii26$f35v$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/20/25 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/20/25 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> In fact, your definition impllies a possibility that there may be 
>>>> some Knowledge that isn't True, depending on how you parse your 
>>>> definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Knowledge is defined to be TRUE.
>>> The set of human general knowledge is defined as elements
>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to basic facts.
>>
>> And thus it will be wrong when we ask it about statements which are 
>> known to have a truth value, because they belong to a field for which 
>> the law of the excluded middle holds, but whose value is not know.
>>
>> For instance if x is a statement about the truth of the Collatz 
>> Conjecture being true, then by your definition:
>>
>> True(x) is False and True(~x) is False, and thus we have a 
>> contradiction since we know one of them must be true,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we begin with a set of basic facts and all inference
>>>>> is limited to applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>> elements of this set then a True(X) predicate cannot possibly
>>>>> be thwarted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because you have defined Truth to be limited to knowledge, and 
>>>> thus made your "Logic System" worthless, as it can be used to find 
>>>> out something new.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not at all worthless. It can prove that climate change is
>>> real and everyone saying otherwise is a liar. It can prove
>>> that there never was any actual evidence of election fraud
>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the 2020
>>> presidential election and everyone saying otherwise is a liar.
>>> *True(X) can save the planet and save Democracy*
>>
>> Nope, because that is just built on OPINION and you are just a liar 
>> for saying otherwise.
>>
> 
> I got on an Elon Musk page and dared anyone to point
> to any actual evidence what-so-ever that election
> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential
> election and they didn't even have double talk and
> weasel words to back their position after many
> hundreds of exchanges.
> 

But that isn't proof.

That is part of your problme, you don't understand what truth actually 
means.

Most of what we consider to be Human Knowledge is our agreed upon 
opinion of the best solution that represents our observations, or the 
agreed upon naming/classification of things.

The knowledge that comes from Formal Logic is the one segment which is 
actually truth, and all of that is still just conditionally true, the 
conditions being that you are in looking in a system based on the same 
axioms.

>> Please show an actual LOGICAL PROOF of your statements, based on sound 
>> axiomatic logic, and not just a perdonderance of the evidence.
>>
>> Your problem is you just don't understand what Truth means, or even 
>> what Knowledge means.
>>
>>>
>>>> This has always been your problem, you confuse the concept of actual 
>>>> Truth, with includes statements which might not be know, or can even 
>>>> be unknowable, with the limited concept of what is known.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unknown things are outside of the scope of any True(X)
>>> predicate that can possibly exist.
>>
>> And thus you admit that you logic system FAILS to meet the requirement, 
> 
> It is stupid that you require the set of knowledge to
> contain unknown things.

I don't, because unknown things can't be known.

What I require is that TRUTH includes unknown things, because it has 
been shown that it does.

You just seem to have a memtal block on the difference between our 
knowledge, and the actaul existance of a truth.

> 
>> mostly because you are too stupid to understand the logic of the 
>> requirements because you world is just built on the foundation of the 
>> right to LIE.
>>
>>>
>>>> Note, in REAL logic systems, Truth can be established via infinite 
>>>> length chains of reasoning steps,
>>>
>>> All of these otherwise infinite proofs are compressed using
>>> something like mathematical induction. When they are compressed
>>> then they become elements of the set of knowledge.
>>
>> Nope. Not until your FIND the induction.
>>
> Right and until, then they are outside of the set
> of knowledge. True(X) works for the set of knowledge
> thus Tarski was WRONG.

But the set of knowledge isn't a logic system that meets Tarski's 
criteria for a system.

> 
> 
>> Note, there is not such thing (in standard logic) of an "Infinite 
>> Proof", that is like you example of a square circle, a contradiction 
>> inherent in the terminology.
>>
> 
> SET OF KNOWLEDGE DOOFUS
> SET OF KNOWLEDGE DOOFUS
> SET OF KNOWLEDGE DOOFUS
> SET OF KNOWLEDGE DOOFUS

Still not a logc, and thus not applicable to what you claim.


> 
>> You are still just proving that you are just too stupid to se your 
>> ignorance of what you talk about.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> while knowledge requires a finite chain (since we are finite, we 
>>>> can't 'know' something only learnable via an infinite path).
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you actually are.
>>>
>>> Show me how you actually know right now how the Goldbach
>>> Conjecture is true or false, which it is TRUE or FALSE
>>> and show ALL of your steps.
>>
>> I don't know which, but I do know that either there exist an even 
>> number that can be proved to not be representable as the sum of two 
>> primes, or there is no such number. Mathematics is definite, so there 
>> can't be a number that "sort of" exists to get us into a middle ground.
>>
>> So, it is quite possible to know that a statement must have a truth 
>> value, while having no idea which value it has, something your "logic" 
>> is incapable of handling.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========