| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2g2dp$3ugq$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: Mon, 20 May 2024 12:48:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 166 Message-ID: <v2g2dp$3ugq$1@dont-email.me> References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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> <v2d0qp$3dlkm$1@dont-email.me> <v2d1io$3dplm$1@dont-email.me> <v2evl5$3snmj$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 19:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="629f9cefad5d4023792ce8f8ed8d9594"; logging-data="129562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18r7+Ra40TLmwsJQxfBuof6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Meq5P0/b62eybYw4+pOkicnCY5E= In-Reply-To: <v2evl5$3snmj$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8861 On 5/20/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-19 14:15:51 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/19/2024 9:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-19 13:41:56 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> When x is defined as True(L,x) then x is what True(L,x) is, >>> in this case a truth bearer. > >> This is known as the Truth Teller Paradox > > Doesn't matter. But ir you say that "x is not a truth bearer" then, > by a truth preserving transformation, you imply that True(L,x) is True(English, "a cat is an animal) is true LP := ~True(L, LP) expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(...)))) TT := True(L, TT) expands to True(True(True(True(...)))) > not a truth bearer. As you already said that "True(L,x)" is always > a truth bearer, you imply, by another truth preeserving transformation, > that something both is and is not a truth bearer. > *Not at all* *Prolog sees the same infinite recursion and rejects it* ?- LP = not(true_(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. ?- TT = true(TT). TT = true(TT). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(TT, true(TT)). false. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========