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 18:22:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2b9mo$1ecj9$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <v1uie1$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> <v2b17b$1ct7p$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v2b1dr$2u8oi$3@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 22:22:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1520233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2b1dr$2u8oi$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5120
Lines: 80

On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers
> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called.
> 
> 
> 

Not allowed.

I guess your system just doesn't have a Truth Predicate per the Definition.

Shows how you have just been lying about knowing what you are talking about.

Your answer is basically saying Tarski is wrong, but I can't actually do 
what I said I could do, so I guess he was right but I will just lie and 
say he is wrong.