| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v25274$1jf4o$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Thu, 16 May 2024 08:37:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 137 Message-ID: <v25274$1jf4o$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> <v23upn$1bn79$1@dont-email.me> <v24qm3$16nbj$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 15:37:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4dc0119aaf775edb7bf006f6d2fcc2e1"; logging-data="1686680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SkIBIoUu0gwTBebfA02GJ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ix6v99nduQGly2RSLcdL1K8GfTs= In-Reply-To: <v24qm3$16nbj$1@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7069 On 5/16/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/15/24 11:33 PM, 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. >> >> *You got overwhelmed with that so we have to break it down to* >> *smaller steps to see exactly where our mutual agreement diverged* > > No, > >> >> 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* >> > > Just more of your off topic red herring. > > You don't need to repeat what has been agreed to, that is just a > delaying tactic because you are stumped. The Socratic method begins with mutual agreement and then makes incremental steps that maintain this mutual agreement. I am taking what you said is that you do agree with the above. The English Liar Paradox that you agree with it isomorphic to the formalized Liar Paradox: "p defined as ~True(L, p)" *You agreed that it is neither True nor False too* When you are disagreeing with yourself and I ask what's up with that? this is not a delaying tactic, it is an preventing jumping to false conclusions tactic. On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ... >> >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p? > No, so True(L, p) is false >> >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? > > No, so False(L, p) is false, > When "p defined as ~True(L, p)" then you agreed "True(L, p) is false" and "False(L, p) is false" proving that p is not a truth bearer. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer