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: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 07:32:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v24qsq$16nbi$1@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$2@dont-email.me> <v1qvku$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>
 <v242un$1cdll$1@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 11:32:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1269106"; 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: <v242un$1cdll$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5533
Lines: 99

On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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. If it IS false, then the 
>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means your 
>> system is broken.
>>
> 
>   True(L, true) is false
> False(L, true) is false
> 
> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
> 


No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. The value of the value 
true IS true.

true is the logic value of statement tmentrs.

"This statment is true" is the truth teller paradox, not the logic value 
true.

This goes back to the ambiguity of trying to discuss logic with words.