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
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:50:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cc75e1bdfa918eedc80a9230b0484acda284dc56@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:50:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1205216"; 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: <vrl0tr$2na3e$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3843
Lines: 65

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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 

SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove something.

It is clearly not "self-evidently true", since I just listed a problem 
that it couldn't decide on.

Your problem is your system doesn't have a valid definition of "Truth" 
in the first place.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.