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