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 19:04:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2bc5o$1ecj9$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@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> <v2b9mo$1ecj9$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2bb6d$308qd$2@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 23:04:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1520233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2bb6d$308qd$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7014
Lines: 123

On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
> 
> 

So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a sequence 
of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right?

So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your 
definition will say that True(L, p) will return false?

That means that the predicate establishes that there IS a seriers of 
truth perservion operations that derive the expreson ~True(L, p).

And if so, doesnt that mean that the truth value of p will be true, 
since p is defined as the logical negation of True(L, p), which we just 
establish HAS a sequence of truth perservion operations as indicated by 
the truth predicate.

and if so, doesn't that mean that your True(L, x) just returned the 
false value for an input that was, by your definitions, true?

How does that work?

Deflect again and I will just point out that you have refused to answer 
because you are just admitting you can't figure out how to fix your 
broken system.

After all, you have proven that just because you thinkl something is 
self-evedently true, doesn't mean that it is true, as you sense of 
self-evedent is just broken.