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: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:43:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c072aa6396dff32d95d8a5f9abb8aeab371b6f39@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvnvv$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>
 <64f12897930df51566aada9744e77a09ad83dab0@i2pn2.org>
 <vskotr$378kj$6@dont-email.me>
 <3e66396147f21a4fff87b8bd36612fe3d1fe72ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vskthv$378kj$16@dont-email.me> <vsku58$3a1db$3@dont-email.me>
 <vskv2l$378kj$17@dont-email.me> <vsl04q$3a1db$4@dont-email.me>
 <vsl2j0$3o5ji$1@dont-email.me> <vsl3bi$3a1db$5@dont-email.me>
 <vsmjat$1aei2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 22:44:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3013967"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vsmjat$1aei2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4414
Lines: 70

On 4/3/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 11:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/3/2025 12:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2025 10:43 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We don't have to.  It was scrutinized by many experts for decades.
>>>>
>>>> The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is wrong.
>>>
>>> Appeal to authority is an error.
>>> Tarski says that he does not derive (1)
>>> by applying truth preserving operations.
>>>
>>
>> LIAR:
>>
>> On 4/2/2025 11:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > The paragraph before that he says:
>>  >
>>  >> In accordance with the first
>>  >> part of Th. I we can obtain ...
>>  >
>>  > That shows that he is building that statement from his previous proof.
>>  >
>>  > So, prove him wrong or PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
> 
> <DIRECT QUOTE>
> THEOREM I. (α) In whatever way the symbol 'Tr', denoting a
> class of expressions, is defined in the metatheory, it will be possible
> to derive from it the negation of one of the sentences which were
> described in the condition (α) of the convention T;
> 
> (β) assuming that the class of all provable sentences of the metatheory
> is consistent, it is impossible to construct an adequate
> definition of truth in the sense of convention T on the basis of the
> metatheory. ...
> 
> Should we succeed in constructing in the metalanguage
> a correct definition of truth, then ...
> 
> It would
> then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar in the
> metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence x
> such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
> with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
> </DIRECT QUOTE>
> 
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
> 
> 
> 

So, what is the ERROR?

I guess you need to SHUT UP.

Sorry, but you are just showing that you are just a ignorant and stupid 
pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.

Note, he is just giving the rough sketch of the proof here, as he 
mentions in the footnote:

I take this opportunity of mentioning that Th. I and the sketch of its
proof was only added to the present work after it had already gone to press.

Note, he calls it a "sketch", as he is presuming the reader has read 
Godel and understands his proof which he heavily leans on.

Godel has proved that we CAN construct in the meta-language the antimony 
of the liar, so if that is what you are going to complain about, show 
the error in Godel.