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 22:51:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <v26k8e$20nen$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@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>
 <v26ie2$20f8s$1@dont-email.me> <v26iuo$18ad7$15@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 05:51:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="269f5d410d08e21225230cab72194d27";
	logging-data="2121175"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185mWwILRBxZhypbmlo8+cG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nDohX34sVFR1gPJINLxyz6GCjiY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v26iuo$18ad7$15@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10426

On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
> 

Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
(a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
     of the general knowledge of the actual world.
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)

Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
know this at the time.

> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
> 

It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
Truth Teller Paradox.

> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
> 
> True(L, x) doesn't need to be 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.
>>>
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========