Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 13:59:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v2g6hr$4nu0$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>
 <v2dc83$1g2n9$10@i2pn2.org> <v2dmem$3i21i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2e236$1g2n8$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 20:59:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="629f9cefad5d4023792ce8f8ed8d9594";
	logging-data="155584"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180nqms17eIhtd0JP/S/gd2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mwPoyB8GU72akWlXpGtVLjGtJFM=
In-Reply-To: <v2e236$1g2n8$5@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4814

On 5/19/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/19/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/19/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> p = ~True(L,p) // p is not a truth bearer because its refers to itself
> 
> Then ~True(L,p) can't be a truth beared as they are the SAME STATEMENT, 
> just using different "names".


Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
p = ~True(L,p) Truthbearer(L,p) is false
q = ~True(L,p) Truthbearer(L,q) is true

> 
> Just like (with context) YOU can be refered to a PO, Peter, Peter Olcott 
> or Olcott, and all the reference get to the exact same entity, so any 
> "name" for the express
> 
>> True(L,p)  is false
>> True(L,~p) is false
>>
> 
> So since True(L, p) is false, then ~True(L, p) is true.
> 
>> ~True(True(L,p)) is true and is referring to the p that refers
>> to itself it is not referring to its own self.
>>
>> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE*
> 
> Why add the indirection? p is the NAME of the statement, which means 
> exactly the same thing as the statement itself.
> 

p = ~True(L,p)
does not mean that same thing as True(L, ~True(L,p))
The above ~True(L, p) has another ~True(L,p) embedded in p.

> Is the definition of an English word one level LESS of indirection than 
> the word itself?
> 

This sentence is not true("This sentence is not true") is true.

> I don't think you understand what it means to define something.
> 

x := y means x is defined to be another name for y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

LP := ~True(L, LP)
specifies ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...)))))

> "Definition by example" is worse than "Proof by example", at least proof 
> by example can be correct if the assertion is that there exists, and not 
> for all.
> 

A simpler isomorphism of the same thing is proof by analogy.

> A level of indirection:
> 
> p: "This sentence is true", which is exactly the same as "p is true" 
> since "this sentence" IS p
> 

p := True(L,p)
specifies True(True(True(True(True(...)))))

*Prolog sees the same infinite recursion and rejects it*
?- TT = true(TT).
TT = true(TT).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(TT, true(TT)).
false.

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