Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 18:31:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cf72583a1a71a2ec11669e72f3ed07ba8e9adc9b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrh432$39r47$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrhami$3fbja$2@dont-email.me> <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me> <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me> <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me>
 <0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvnvv$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 22:32:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2733437"; 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: <vsh9ko$3mdkb$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2967
Lines: 30

On 4/1/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2025 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-31 18:29:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-30 11:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>> You have never expressed any disagreement with the starting points of
>>>> Tarski's proof. You have ever claimed that any of Tarski's inferences
>>>> were not truth preserving. But you have claimed that the last one of
>>>> these truth preservin transformation has produced a false conclusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE to specify True(X) ∧ ~Provable(X)
>>> (what Tarski proved) when-so-ever True(X) ≡ Provable(X).
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>> Tarski's proof was not about provability. Gödel had already proved
>> that there are unprovable true sentences. Tarski's work is about
>> definability.
>>
> 
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
> Step (3) is self-contradictory, thus his whole proof fails.
> 

Yes, and since that step was logically done, it says somewhere we 
assumed something incorrect. The assumption we made was that a Truth 
Predicate existed, so that can't be true.

You apparently don't understand how logic works.