Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:20:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <v26ie2$20f8s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@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>
 <v24qsq$16nbi$1@i2pn2.org> <v253g6$1jo3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v26fe6$18ad7$3@i2pn2.org> <v26g9v$1vvq8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v26gtr$18ad7$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 05:20:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="269f5d410d08e21225230cab72194d27";
	logging-data="2112796"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eneK1qHNQEp5kbZR56922"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j5L1N+jQ2EjWwuySOfLIx3P9PQA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v26gtr$18ad7$13@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8126

On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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. 
>>>>
>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>
>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>
>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>> *True by definition must actually be true*
> 
> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
> 
> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
> 

A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.

>>
>>>>
>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>
>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>
>>
>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
> 
> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY 
> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
> 
>>
>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>> 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).   Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
> 
> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be 
> defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true) can 
> be false.
> 

You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.

If necessary we can go over this single point again
and again and again and not talk about anything else
until you get it.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer