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: Sat, 18 May 2024 10:32:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2ae6h$1ct7p$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1rkt4$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>
 <v2937a$2jfci$1@dont-email.me> <v294e1$1a3tk$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v297m8$2k4a6$1@dont-email.me> <v2a7p7$1ct7p$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2ad5l$2qlho$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 14:32:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1471737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v2ad5l$2qlho$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 20793
Lines: 567

On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/17/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2024 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, because you said the value of "true" doesn't exist, truth is 
>>>> dependent on having something to make true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True(L,x) is defined in terms of its truthmaker.
>>
>> And create a contradiction.
>>
> 
> You have not shown that.
> All you have shown is a failure to understand that the formalized
> Truth Teller Paradox is not a truth bearer.
> 
>>
>>> A whole bunch of expressions are stipulated to have the semantic
>>> property of Boolean true. Being a member of this sat is what makes
>>> them true.
>>
>> and everything derivable from them with truth preserving operations, 
>> including the defined behavior of the True operator, and thus,
>>
> 
> This seems to indicate that when on non truth-bearer such as "a fish"
> is neither true nor false you still want to process it.
> 
> This indicates that you don't understand that when any expression
> X is shown to be neither True nor False that X has proven to not
> be a truth-bearer thus must be rejected as a type-mismatch error
> for any system of bivalent logic.
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>> Yes, which makes True(L, a sentence proven to be true) to be false.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, it is inconsistant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
>>> *It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
>>> *It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
>>
>> p is true, because True(L, p) being false made it so, since p was 
>> defined to be ~True(L, p)
>>
> 
> p is not a truth-bearer thus behaves the exact same way as any
> other non-truth-bearer such as "a fish".
> 
>> THIS is the "true" that True(L, p) has previously defined to be false, 
> 
> We cannot correctly say it that way because we a leaving
> the definition of p as vague.
> 
> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
> True(L, p) is false
> False(L,p) is false
> 
> Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
> mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
> 
>> and thus your True predicate is shown to be inconsistant.
>>
> 
> It is not inconsistent and you have only shown your own lack
> of understanding when attempting to support such claims.
> 
>>>
>>>> Or we can use the arguement that since
>>>>
>>>> p is ~True(L, p) which is false that p is alse 
>>>
>>> then "a fish" because ~True(English, "a fish") is false that
>>> makes "a fish" false.
>>
>> Why?
>>
> 
> I simply applied the same reasoning that you applied to
> non-truth-bearer p to non-truth-bearer "a fish".
> 
> *SINCE REPETITION SEEMS TO HELP YOU CONCENTRATE*
> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
> True(L, p) is false
> False(L,p) is false
> 
> Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
> mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
> Likewise for "a fish".
> 
>> True didn't make p true because it was an input to the Truth 
>> Predicate, but because p was defined as an expression based on it,
>>
>> where was this done to "a fish".
>>
> p = "a fish"
> True(L, p) is false
> False(L,p) is false
> Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
> mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
> The same thing applies when p defined as ~True(L, p)
> 
>> You are just proving you don't understand what is being talked about.
>>
>>>
>>>> ~True(L, ~True(L, p) which, since True(L, p) is "established" to be 
>>>> false, and thus ~True(L,p) to be true, we can say that True(L, 
>>>> ~True(L, p) must be true 
>>>
>>> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>>> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>>> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>>
>> In other words, you logic doesn't understand how to handle references!
>>
> 
> *I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
> *I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
> *I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========