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 07:41:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v27fpm$18ad7$17@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> <v26puo$21mdd$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 11:41:42 -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
In-Reply-To: <v26puo$21mdd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10381
Lines: 214

On 5/17/24 1:28 AM, 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?
>>
>> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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.
>>>>
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========