Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v23upn$1bn79$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 22:33:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 91 Message-ID: <v23upn$1bn79$1@dont-email.me> 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$2@dont-email.me> <v1qvku$qvg3$5@i2pn2.org> <v1r0fg$2rva6$1@dont-email.me> <v1r1ci$qvg3$6@i2pn2.org> <v1r276$2shtf$1@dont-email.me> <v1r932$qvg3$8@i2pn2.org> <v1rdr5$30gkq$1@dont-email.me> <v1rggn$qvg3$11@i2pn2.org> <v1rhff$31ege$1@dont-email.me> <v1rhqr$qvg2$3@i2pn2.org> <v1rj05$31n8h$2@dont-email.me> <v1rkt4$qvg2$4@i2pn2.org> <v1rlj7$324ln$2@dont-email.me> <v1rn85$qvg3$12@i2pn2.org> <v1s25g$38fdl$1@dont-email.me> <v1ssv3$qvg3$15@i2pn2.org> <v1ta68$3hc9t$1@dont-email.me> <v1ub9v$v37v$1@i2pn2.org> <v1ugp1$3tnr6$1@dont-email.me> <v1uie1$v37v$16@i2pn2.org> <v23p6n$17u5o$1@dont-email.me> <v23ppq$15g3d$2@i2pn2.org> <v23qcc$17u5o$2@dont-email.me> <v23ra5$15fgo$1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 05:33:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dc0119aaf775edb7bf006f6d2fcc2e1"; logging-data="1432809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YjtUvrDDObVf7plOgYEjM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+O11NdxHwBIFiqpXhoyyXeKet28= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v23ra5$15fgo$1@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 5432 On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ a >>>>>>> truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>> >>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>> >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>> >>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be >>> false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>> >>>>> >>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>> >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>> >>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>> >>>>> >>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>> >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>> >>>> >>> >>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means that >>> True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>> >> >> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >> nor false in English. >> >> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >> >> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >> >> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >> the exact same semantics as the English one. >> > > No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) with > p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. *You got overwhelmed with that so we have to break it down to* *smaller steps to see exactly where our mutual agreement diverged* Do you understand and agree with this? True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false *Is saying the same thing that you already agreed to* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer