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: Sun, 19 May 2024 13:17:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2dc83$1g2n9$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@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>
 <v2cvj6$3ddo5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 17:17:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1575657"; 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: <v2cvj6$3ddo5$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 14353
Lines: 324

On 5/19/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

So, x being DEFINED to be a certain sentence doesn't make x to have the 
same meaning as the sentence itself?

What does it mean to define a name to a given sentence, if not that such 
a name referes to exactly that sentence?

> 
> ~True(L,x) is always a truth bearer.
> when x is defined as ~True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer.

Again, what does "Defined as" mean to you?

> 
> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========