Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<f1ed302f556f40a3208eb90343ce2dde9c2073ad@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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 ---ZFC Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 07:03:20 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <f1ed302f556f40a3208eb90343ce2dde9c2073ad@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> <cc75e1bdfa918eedc80a9230b0484acda284dc56@i2pn2.org> <vrl3fn$2nttr$3@dont-email.me> <8c4ea7f74348f8becac017bb33d6cab1b30f5e01@i2pn2.org> <vrl9ab$2t44r$3@dont-email.me> <4702eef1b0ace44f2a334894a27ead737d674fe6@i2pn2.org> <vrmk28$5bpl$4@dont-email.me> <4d728cda161b629a6fa645a938580551566fda78@i2pn2.org> <vrmvqi$cvat$10@dont-email.me> <0b09ece8b64c4c2f9cd572fe5f5e4a2ae5937348@i2pn2.org> <vro2ej$1c9ia$4@dont-email.me> <vrtu99$32gfg$1@dont-email.me> <vruej1$3gia2$1@dont-email.me> <7d8b6459caffb461811e7695b10688f566313dec@i2pn2.org> <vrvmco$i7jg$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:25:15 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1823100"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <vrvmco$i7jg$2@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10940 Lines: 219 On 3/25/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/25/2025 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/25/25 10:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/25/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-03-23 04:24:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 3/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 11:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 5:11 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> The liar sentence is contradictory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> Not self-evident was Gödel's disproof of that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the proof is only syntactic then it isn't directly >>>>>>>>>>>>> connected to >>>>>>>>>>>>> any meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But Formal Logic proofs ARE just "syntactic" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the body of human general knowledge has all of its >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of Semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> then a proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> means validation of truth. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not >>>>>>>>>>>> need to be >>>>>>>>>>>> able to be validated. >>>>>>>>>>> True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else. >>>>>>>>>> Not if X is unknown (but still true). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You must pay complete attention to ALL of my words >>>>>>>>> or you get the meaning that I specify incorrectly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is that statement, you don't get to change the >>>>>>>> meaning of the core terms and stay in the system, so you are >>>>>>>> just admitting that all your work is based on strawmen, and thus >>>>>>>> frauds. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <sarcasm> >>>>>>> In the exact same way that ZFC totally screwed up >>>>>>> and never resolved Russell's Paradox because they >>>>>>> were forbidden to limit how sets are defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When the definition of a set allowed pathological >>>>>>> self-reference they should have construed this >>>>>>> as infallible and immutable. >>>>>>> </sarcasm> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IN other words, you admit that you can't refute what I said, so >>>>>> you just go off beat. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> By the freaking concrete example that I provided >>>>> YES YOU DO GET TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE TERMS. >>>> >>>> No, you can't. The nearest you can is to create a new term that >>>> is homonymous to an old one. But you can't use two homonymous >>>> terms in the same opus. >>>> >>> >>> Original set theory became "naive set theory". >>> ZFC set theory corrected its shortcomings. >> >> >>> >>> GKEUL provides the means for a True(X) predicate >>> to be defined for this entire domain of knowledge. >>> It cannot be fooled by silly self-contradictory >>> expressions. >>> >> >> But then your "True(x)" isn't a "Truth Predicate" but a "Knowledge >> Predicate" so your system is just defined to be based on a lie, as >> Truth and Knowledge are different things. >> > > It <is> a truth predicate for the domain of knowledge that ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========