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 ==========