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,sci.logic,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:31:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <87b334681a5e65d8c70b10e6ebd4a98c0aff9f36@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr3u4l$3idjs$2@dont-email.me>
 <vr4kkr$48ff$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me>
 <7e65b56232049fe2b950c1502d33545501e1f185@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkqnt$2h2aq$3@dont-email.me>
 <829a8bc81663a35c224655ab2d5394505bf03a3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl65j$2qtdu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 02:31:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1213124"; 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: <vrl65j$2qtdu$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10893
Lines: 197

On 3/21/25 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/21/2025 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/21/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2025 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/20/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/19/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/19/25 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/25 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2025 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-17 15:40:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/25 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/25 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeeds except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not disprove Tarski.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He said that this is impossible and no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(GC) == FALSE Cannot be proven true AKA unknown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(LP) == FALSE Not a truth-bearer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if x is what you are saying is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A True(X) predicate can be defined and Tarski never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showed that it cannot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he did. Using a mathematical system like Godel, we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can construct a statement x, which is only true it is the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case that True(x) is false, but this interperetation can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only be seen in the metalanguage created from the language 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the proof, similar to Godel meta that generates the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof testing relationship that shows that G can only be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if it can not be proven as the existance of a number 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make it false, becomes a proof that the statement is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true and thus creates a contradiction in the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you can't understand that, or get confused by what is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the language, which your True predicate can look at, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the metalanguage, which it can not, but still you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make bold statements that you can not prove, and have been 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out to be wrong, just shows how stupid you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(X) only returns TRUE when a a sequence of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations can derive X from the set of basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts and returns false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but needs to do so even if the path to x is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite in length.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This never fails on the entire set of human general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't a logic system, so you are just proving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, "The Entire set of Human General Knowledge" does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain the contents of Meta-systems like Tarski uses, as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are an infinite number of them possible, and thus to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even try to express them all requires an infinite number 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of axioms, and thus your system fails to meet the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements. Once you don't have the meta- systems, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski proof can create a metasystem, that you system 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't know about, which creates the problem statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not fooled by pathological self-reference or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is, because it can't detect all forms of such 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, even if it does detect it, what answer does True(x) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce when we have designed (via a metalanguage) that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the statement x in the language will be true if and only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if ! True(x), which he showed can be done in ANY system 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with sufficient power, which your universal system must have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you are just showing how little you understand what 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need no metalanguage. A single formalized natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language can express its own semantics as connections
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between expressions of this same language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A nice formal language has the symbols and syntax of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> first order logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> with equivalence and the following additional symbols:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about a trivially simple formal
>>>>>>>>>>> language. I am talking about very significant
>>>>>>>>>>> extensions to something like Montague grammar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The language must be expressive enough to fully
>>>>>>>>>>> encode any and all details of each element of the
>>>>>>>>>>> entire body of human general knowledge that can
>>>>>>>>>>> be expressed using language. Davidson semantics
>>>>>>>>>>> provides another encoding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But "encoding" knowledge, isn't a logic system.
>>>>>>>>> Unless you bother to pay attention to the details
>>>>>>>>> of how this of encoded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But "Encoded Knowledge" isn't a logic system. PERIOD. BYU 
>>>>>>>> DEFINITION. That would just be a set of axioms. Note, Logic 
>>>>>>>> system must also have a set of rules of relationships and how to 
>>>>>>>> manipulate them, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes stupid I already specified those 150 times.
>>>>>>> TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and that needs more that just expressing them as knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NOT AT ALL DUMB BUNNY, for all the expressions
>>>>>>> that are proved completely true entirely on the basis of
>>>>>>> their meaning expressed in language they only need a
>>>>>>> connection this semantic meaning to prove that they
>>>>>>> are true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem is that most of what we call "Human 
>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge" isn't logically defined truth, but is just 
>>>>>>>>>> "Emperical Knowledge", for which we 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The set of human knowledge that can be expressed
>>>>>>>>> in language provides the means to compute True(X).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not, as then True(x) just can't handle a statement 
>>>>>>>> whose truth is currently unknown, which it MUST be able to handle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It employs the same algorithm as Prolog:
>>>>>>> Can X be proven on the basis of Facts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus you just admitted that your system doesn't even QUALIFY 
>>>>>> to be the system that Tarski is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that fact, because apparently you 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========