| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2cvj6$3ddo5$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Sun, 19 May 2024 08:41:56 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 266 Message-ID: <v2cvj6$3ddo5$1@dont-email.me> References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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> <v2bsog$36vvc$1@dont-email.me> <v2cpb1$1g2n8$1@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 15:41:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b2dd23db76027a1e88bd64b7a96c771"; logging-data="3585797"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19veQq1Mg15HUvY3Viqs7Tf" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JxREOVx42NMTAiOlHVJWPJUaMCY= In-Reply-To: <v2cpb1$1g2n8$1@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12277 On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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") >> > > > Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, but > by its definition, True(L, x) can not. > True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. ~True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. when x is defined as ~True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. Compared to most of the rest of the world including leading experts in this field you are doing quite well with this. One of the top experts in the field of truthmaker maximalism is not even sure that "This sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#Max This means that you are ahead of the leading experts in the field. > Maybe your problem is you just forgot to learn the meaning of the key > words in the things you want to talk about. > >>> 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. > > I have been using NEITHER of those sentences, only YOU have in your > confusion. > You have been saying things with isomorphic structure. LP := ~True(L,LP) True(L,LP) is false True(L,~LP) is false ~True(True(L,LP)) is true *This last one does not make LP true* *This last one has one level of indirect reference* > If your problem is that you can not think of Formal statements as Formal > statement, but need to translate them into sloppy English, that is YOUR > problem, and means you need to just admit you don't know what you are > talking about. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========