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: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:25:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dc3b0d92f60936ff3b96bbd72b96ac7f7bbd9c97@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> <vbrhtd$3g0lp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbrvr7$3im2p$3@dont-email.me> <vbu82h$5icd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbulmp$8crn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:25:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1776782"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbulmp$8crn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8482
Lines: 177

On 9/12/24 8:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/12/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-11 11:44:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-10 13:46:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>> publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>>>>
>>>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>>>> (0) not  (1)
>>>>> (1) true (0) // cycle in digraph
>>>>
>>>> For ordinary first order logic it is possible to make a program that
>>>> reads a text file and checks whether it is a vlaid proof. Is the same
>>>> possible for your Minimal Type Theory?
>>>
>>> I don't need any of that.
>>
>> If your Minimal Type Theory does not do more than that then it is not
>> publishable in a respectable journal.
>>
> 
> In other words if MTT has unlimited orders of logic
> this makes MTT inferior to FOL?

It becomes inferior because you idea might take a finite logic system, 
and blow it up into an uncounably infinite logic system as you need to 
make EVERYTHING, all functions and such, into base objects.

Basically, you try to fold everything into first order logic by making 
your "set of concepts" into a truely universal set, which just make you 
subcomb to the Russel Paradox.

> 
> The prior version of MTT simply translated its expressions
> into directed graph of the evaluation sequence. A cycle
> in this evaluation sequence proved that the expression
> was ill-formed.


Which just shows that you system is too limited as SOME cyclic 
expressions are evaluatable.

> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
> publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> 
> LP := ~True(LP)
> 00 ~    (01)
> 01 True (00)
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========