Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Fri, 17 May 2024 07:41:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v27fpj$18ad7$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@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> <v26k8e$20nen$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 11:41:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1321383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v26k8e$20nen$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11710
Lines: 256

On 5/16/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.


In other words, you believe that it is a valid interpretation to change 
the meaning of words from what the original speaker took the words to 
mean, and still are able to say that he actually MEANT the sentence with 
the new meaning of the words.

> 
>> 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.

Yes, which shows that True(L, p) can not exist, or it allows the PROVING 
of both truth values for the Truth Teller Paradox, instead of being able 
to leave it as a non-truth-bearer.


Fundamentally, your problem is you don't actually know the meaning of 
the words you are using, but have assumed (incorrect) meaning from your 
ZEROTH order study of the field.

> 
>> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========