Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 12:56:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2amkc$1ct7p$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1rn85$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> <v2ae6h$1ct7p$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2am4p$2sdl6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 16:56:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1471737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2am4p$2sdl6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3723
Lines: 46

On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> No, your system contradicts itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have never shown this.
>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the
>>> Truth Teller Paradox.
>>
>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you 
>> don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be.
>>
> 
> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every
> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth
> preserving operations that derive x from

And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving 
operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it 
contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of 
false, has asserted that such a sequence exists.

To meet your definition, True(L, p) needs to respond some how with a 
non-truth-bearing answer, which is outside its defined behavior, so it 
just can not exist.

> 
> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that
> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have the
> semantic value of Boolean true.
> 
> False(L,x) is defined as True(L,x).
> 
>> If, as you claim p in L defined as ~True(L, p) results in True(L, p) 
>> being false, then p must be a true statement...
> 
> The wording of that seems to say that because p is known to be
> untrue that this makes p true.
> 

Yep, because p is defined by p := ~True(L, p) if True(L, p) decides that 
p is untrue and returns falsem then p becomes a true statement, which 
True has decided incorrectly on.