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: Fri, 17 May 2024 21:19:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <v2937a$2jfci$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1r932$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>
 <v28vsb$2f45l$1@dont-email.me> <v290i2$1a3tk$21@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 04:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95afb1fc0a4871125108def5044e156a";
	logging-data="2735506"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SLZKvyU0NeALaBEBlXGsN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qCTvYHl+e6KILrBjG2vGXn4TBsQ=
In-Reply-To: <v290i2$1a3tk$21@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6264

On 5/17/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>  > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>
>>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>>
>>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true) 
>>> returns false, which says your logic system is broken by being 
>>> inconsistant.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
>> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
>> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
> 
> In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
> 

It does have an immutably correct notion of {true on the basis
of meaning} and rejects finite strings as not truth bearers on
this basis.

> The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said that p 
> wasn't true.
> 

*You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
*You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
*You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*

>>
>> This sentence is true.
>> What is it true about?
>> It is true about being true.
>> What is it is true about being true about?
>>
>> This turns out to be Kripke ungrounded yet Kripke did
>> not know the algorithmic basis for Kripke grounding.
>>
>> *Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke* (1975)
>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
>>>> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT VALUE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that 
>>> out.
>>>
>>
>> All that you pointed out is that you still don't understand
>> the Truth Teller paradox.
> 
> No, YOU don't understand that True MUST be a truth beared, or you are 
> just a liar that your system has a Truth Predicate.
> 
> 
> Remember, we started with
> 
> p in L is ~True(L, p)
> you say True(L, p) is false

*No you said this* (Socratic question)

> thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the falseness of 
> True(L, p)
> 

We test p for True or False if neither it is tossed out on its ass.

It is like we are testing if a person is hungry:
We ask is the person dead? The answer is yes and then you
say what if they are still hungry?

> Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
> 

We sure as Hell cannot correctly say that.

*THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
*THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
*THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*

> ~True(L, ~True(L, p))

~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is not true")) is true
~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is true")) is true

> 
> Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the 
> outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation of 
> a false statement)

~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true

>  and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we 
> can show that p must be false.
> 

By this same reasoning we can show that "a fish" must be false.

> Thus we have a contradiction.
> 
> So, if you want to claim "Truth Teller Paradox", the only answer is to 
> say that True(L, p) isn't actually a truth-bearer, 

*True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
*True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
*True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*

> and thus it isn't a 
> predicate, and you have lied that your system has one.
> 
>>
>>> This is the problem with the assumption that a Truth Predicate 
>>> exists, and is what Tarksi was pointing out, but which seems to be 
>>> above your level of understanding.
> 

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