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: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge ---ZFC
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:14:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aa6a192ac9b2ea5ffdbabc3572e5926a7c1f39ac@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>
 <7d0164a6001fc519a244b7ed4930d757b9bd7ac1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl0tr$2na3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <cc75e1bdfa918eedc80a9230b0484acda284dc56@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl3fn$2nttr$3@dont-email.me>
 <8c4ea7f74348f8becac017bb33d6cab1b30f5e01@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl9ab$2t44r$3@dont-email.me>
 <4702eef1b0ace44f2a334894a27ead737d674fe6@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmk28$5bpl$4@dont-email.me>
 <4d728cda161b629a6fa645a938580551566fda78@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmvqi$cvat$10@dont-email.me>
 <0b09ece8b64c4c2f9cd572fe5f5e4a2ae5937348@i2pn2.org>
 <vro2ej$1c9ia$4@dont-email.me> <vrtu99$32gfg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vruej1$3gia2$1@dont-email.me> <vs0c3f$1aje5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs1tku$2mnmh$1@dont-email.me>
 <08e87af510dbdba04b40077642643835f122a169@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2ede$354gv$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:31:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1919647"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs2ede$354gv$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9611
Lines: 175

On 3/26/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/26/2025 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/26/25 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-25 14:28:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/25/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-23 04:24:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 5:11 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The liar sentence is contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evidence that for every element of the set 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not self-evident was Gödel's disproof of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the proof is only syntactic then it isn't directly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connected to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Formal Logic proofs ARE just "syntactic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the body of human general knowledge has all of its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of Semantics 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then a proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means validation of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to be validated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not if X is unknown (but still true).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You must pay complete attention to ALL of my words
>>>>>>>>>>> or you get the meaning that I specify incorrectly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that statement, you don't get to change the 
>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the core terms and stay in the system, so you are 
>>>>>>>>>> just admitting that all your work is based on strawmen, and 
>>>>>>>>>> thus frauds.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>    In the exact same way that ZFC totally screwed up
>>>>>>>>>    and never resolved Russell's Paradox because they
>>>>>>>>>    were forbidden to limit how sets are defined.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    When the definition of a set allowed pathological
>>>>>>>>>    self-reference they should have construed this
>>>>>>>>>    as infallible and immutable.
>>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IN other words, you admit that you can't refute what I said, so 
>>>>>>>> you just go off beat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the freaking concrete example that I provided
>>>>>>> YES YOU DO GET TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE TERMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you can't. The nearest you can is to create a new term that
>>>>>> is homonymous to an old one. But you can't use two homonymous
>>>>>> terms in the same opus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original set theory became "naive set theory".
>>>>> ZFC set theory corrected its shortcomings.
>>>>
>>>> The original one is Cantor's. But that his presentation was too 
>>>> informal
>>>> to determine whether Russell's set is expressible. But he did show that
>>>> one can construct from nothing enough sets for natural number 
>>>> arithmetic.
>>>> Russell's set cannot be constructed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My whole point is that a broken system was fixed by redefining it.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========