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: Fri, 17 May 2024 20:22:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 320
Message-ID: <v28vsb$2f45l$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1r1ci$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> <v27fpj$18ad7$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v27pp4$27tqp$1@dont-email.me> <v28v14$1a3tk$19@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 03:22:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95afb1fc0a4871125108def5044e156a";
	logging-data="2592949"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JddvN1lbFBymNwL4XEX2c"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AAaoIru/p2O5UKgVsGluha/bKnE=
In-Reply-To: <v28v14$1a3tk$19@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14645

On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2024 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========