Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:26:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v23jqv$15707$27@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1mnuj$lbo5$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mp1l$1qr5e$4@dont-email.me> <v1mpsh$lbo4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1ms2o$1rkit$1@dont-email.me> <v1prtb$2jtsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qjb1$2ouob$2@dont-email.me> <v1qnfv$2q0t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qtnk$2rdui$2@dont-email.me> <v1t8d5$3gu9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1va5a$355t$1@dont-email.me> <v1vvbv$825a$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21sin$p84q$1@dont-email.me> <v22h0j$tjgs$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 00:26:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1219591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v22h0j$tjgs$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8574
Lines: 176

On 5/15/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-14 15:18:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep 
>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations 
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these 
>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about 
>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are 
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and 
>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no 
>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>>>>>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>>>>>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>>>>>> cannot contribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>>>>>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>>>>>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>>>>>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
>>>>> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
>>>>> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
>>>>> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>>>>>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For real world things that are never required. The various
>>>>> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>>>
>>>> That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
>>>> solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
>>>> remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
>>>> thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
>>>> an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
>>>> sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
>>>> basis of meaning".
>>>>
>>>
>>> My whole purpose with this whole thread is to show exactly how
>>> epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected thus
>>> not form the basis for any undecidability proofs or Tarski's
>>> undefinability theorem.
>>
>> There are provable sentences of the form A -> B where A is some
>> hypthesis and B is an epistemological antimńomy. How are these
>> true statments handled when B is rejected?
>>
> 
> *Already addressed in great depth in my prior reply*

WHERE?

You claim a lot, but I have yet to see ANYTHING from you in the form of 
a "Formal Proof" in a formal system.

> 
> True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving
> operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
> stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is
> defined as True(L,~x).

So, what is True(L, x) when x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)

Your diverssion are just proving you don't know that answer, or even 
understand the problem

> 
> Every expression such that True(L,x)==false and False(L,x)==false
> is rejected as a type mismatch error.
> 

But "Reject" isn't an option.

If True(L, x) for x defined as ~True(L, x) is made false, then that 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========