Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic
 method
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 22:47:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <v2bsog$36vvc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v2bc5o$1ecj9$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 05:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b2dd23db76027a1e88bd64b7a96c771";
	logging-data="3375084"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YuLa57D1BeXPpplObzBGG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gqVL4kQBpX+tet8jtcP9Ld9sXMk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2bc5o$1ecj9$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8344

On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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?
> 
Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good.

> 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?
> 

It is the perfectly isomorphic to this:
True(English, "This sentence is not true")

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

You keep confusing:
This sentence is not true.
with
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true".
I have spent 20,000 hours on this YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE.

> 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.
> 
In Prolog both the Liar Paradox and the Truth Teller Paradox
get stuck in an infinite loop (technically a cycle in the directed
graph of their evaluation sequence).

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2
Catches this cycle and reject it.

This sentence is not true.
What is it not true about?
It is not true about being not true.
What is it not true about being not true about?
It is not true about being not true about being not true...

> 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?
> 

It must work the same as Prolog and detect cycles
in its evaluation graph.

> 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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer