Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 21:56:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 370
Message-ID: <v2h2hs$dgea$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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> <v2g6hr$4nu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2grhe$1kiah$1@i2pn2.org> <v2gusf$ctu7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2h0lf$1kiah$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 04:57:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5f52f96f067406075e702eab09af4a";
	logging-data="442826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/v2+3b31P0aZoo3ucit/WN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w7sT6lCsILx7WpduhIy4Q0XPXaA=
In-Reply-To: <v2h0lf$1kiah$13@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14364

On 5/20/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/20/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/20/24 2:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Irrelvent.
>>>
>>> If Truthbearer(L, p) is FALSE, and since p is just a NAME for the 
>>> statement ~True(L, p), that means that True(L. p) is not a truth 
>>> bearer and True has failed to be the required truth predicate.
>>>
>>
>> That is the same thing as saying that
>> True(English, "this sentence is not true") is false
>> proves that True(L,x) is not a truthbearer.
> 
> Nope, why do you say that?
> 
> What logic are you even TRYING to use to get there?
> 
> I think you don't understand what defining a label to represent a 
> statement means.
> 

I did not said the above part exactly precisely to address
your objection.

p is defined as ~True(L,p)
LP is defined as "this sentence is not true" in English.
Thus True(L,p) ≡ True(English,LP) and
Thus True(L,~p) ≡ True(English,~LP)

>>
>>> If you are defining your "=" symbol to be "is defined as" so the left 
>>> side is now a name for the right side, you statement above just 
>>> PROVES that your logic system is inconsistant as the same expression 
>>> (with just different names) has contradicory values.
>>>
>>> You are just showing you utter lack of understanding of the 
>>> fundamentals of Formal Logic.
>>>
>>
>>     ϕ(x) there is a sentence ψ such that S ⊢ ψ ↔ ϕ⟨ψ⟩.
>> The sentence ψ is of course not self-referential in a strict sense, 
>> but mathematically it behaves like one. 
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/#ConSemPar
> 
> So? Can you show that it is NOT true? or is it just that you don't want 
> it to be true, so you assume it isn't?
> 

defined as is the way to go.

>>
>> No what it shows is that formal logic gets the wrong answer because
>> formal logic does not evaluate actual self-reference.
> 
> No, you don't understand what you are talking about.
> 

Formal logic NEVER EVER gets to
epistemological antinomies ARE NOT TRUTH BEARERS

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Right, that is a sentence about another sentence (that is part of 
>>> itself)
>>>
>>
>> Likewise with ~True(L, ~True(L, p)) where p is defined as ~True(L, p)
>>
> 
> So? Yes ~True(L, ~True(L, p)) IS a different sentence than ~True(L, p) 
> even with p defined a ~True(L, p), BUT they are logically connected as 
> the first follows as a consequence of the second and the definition of p.
> 
>>> p defined as ~True(L, p) isn't a sentence refering to ~True(L, p), it 
>>> is assigning a name to the sentence to allow OTHER sentences to refer 
>>> to it by name,
>>>
>>
>> Yet when p refers to its own name this creates infinite recursion.
>>
> 
> So? What's wrong with that? 

Sure any programs that get stuck in infinite loops are a feature that
everyone likes even when it means that payroll is two weeks late and
you missed your mortgage payment.

> Note, it is recursion that doesn't HAVE to 
> be followed. You seem to be stuck at counting the fingers level math, 
> while trying to talk about trigonometry.
> 

Any expression "standing for some kind of infinite structure."
CANNOT BE EVALUATED THUS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A TRUTH BEARER
THUS <IS> A TYPE MISMATCH ERROR FOR EVERY SYSTEM OF BIVALENT LOGIC	

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