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
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion
 of {linguistic truth}
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:59:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c4803b9d5aeb1ca4b34123be153cf159ab7516bc@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb0lkb$1c1kh$2@dont-email.me> <vb1hdi$1feme$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4erg$2s0uc$1@dont-email.me> <vb6hv7$39dvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71fn$3b4ub$5@dont-email.me> <vbbm40$8k2u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbc9t5$bdtb$1@dont-email.me> <vbem5f$pont$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me> <vbh1n7$19hd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlv7$1c7u5$10@dont-email.me> <vbjq33$1shau$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbk8j9$1u1js$4@dont-email.me> <vbme4f$2bu08$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbmrnq$2dpff$1@dont-email.me> <vbp0r2$2scm4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbpikk$2vfau$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:59:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1595853"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbpikk$2vfau$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6330
Lines: 127

On 9/10/24 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/10/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-09 13:03:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/9/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-08 13:24:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:03:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 13:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 03:04:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remaining loophole is the lack of an exact definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "sufficient reason".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately sufficient reason is correct semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entailment from verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is "verified" facts: what is sufficient 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verification?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stipulated to be true is always sufficient:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cats are a know if animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Insufficient for practtical purposes. You may stipulate that
>>>>>>>>>>>> nitroglycerine is not poison but it can kill you anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that <is> the way the linguistic truth actually 
>>>>>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has 
>>>>>>>>>> been used
>>>>>>>>>> by DG Schwartz in 1985.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction
>>>>>>>>> yet unequivocal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a
>>>>>>>>> similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely
>>>>>>>>> based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical
>>>>>>>>> truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be
>>>>>>>>> verified as true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used the 
>>>>>>>> term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used it 
>>>>>> before?
>>>>>> Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a
>>>>> new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning
>>>>> for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>>>>
>>>> A stipulative definition is a temporary hack when it is not clear
>>>> what the definition should be or when a need for a good definitino
>>>> is not expected. A stipluative definition is not valid outside the
>>>> opus or discussion where it is presented.
>>>>
>>>>> *LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN*
>>>>> When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic
>>>>> meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in
>>>>> language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the
>>>>> True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist.
>>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott
>>>>
>>>> With that definition Tarski proved that linguistic truth is not
>>>> identifiable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No he did not. Tarski's proof that begins with the Liar Paradox
>>> gets rejected at step (3).
>>
>> In the system Tarski was using (i.e. ordinary logic) a proof cannot
>> be rejected.
>>
> 
> If the system is too stupid to reject invalid input
> then it is too stupid. Ordinary logic is too stupid
> to even say the Liar Paradox that I what I invented
> minimal type theory.

No, you are too stupid to understand that "rejection" isn't an option, 
only success or failure, but success is proved impossible.

YOU are the one proved "TOO STUPID" because you failed to learn what you 
are going to talk about.

> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> 
> LP := ~True(LP)
> (0) not  (1)
> (1) true (0) // cycle in digraph
>