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 15:57:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2b17b$1ct7p$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1ub9v$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> <v2amkc$1ct7p$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v2aobj$2sdma$5@dont-email.me> <v2ap1t$1ct7o$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v2b0jd$2u8oi$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 19:57:31 -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: <v2b0jd$2u8oi$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5392
Lines: 95

On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>  >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  >>>
>>>  >>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>>>  >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>  > No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>>>  >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>  >
>>>  > No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>  >
>>>
>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this*
>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both
>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened
>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS*
>>
>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions.
>>
> 
> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T
> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN
> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE
> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR
> 
> The first thing that the formal system does with any
> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer:
> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))

No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer.

There is no "interrupt" that says we have to confirm something before we 
can do something.

> 
> If it is not a Truth-bearer then the formal system
> outputs "Type Mismatch Error x is not a Truth-bearer"
> and no further evaluation is performed.
> 

So, you don't understand what a Truth Predicate is.


Fine, you are just admitting you are an ignorant pathological liar.


> After the formal system has screened out non-truth-bearers
> then ~True(L,x) always means True(L,~x) AKA False(L,x).

Nope, ~True(L,x) means that x is not a true statement, it could be a 
false statement or a non-truth-bearer.

You are just admitting that you are an incompentent ignorant 
pathological liar on this topic.

> 
>> So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL
>>
>> And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant 
>> pathoological liar.
>