| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2l4hr$188bi$3@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 Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 10:55:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 218 Message-ID: <v2l4hr$188bi$3@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> <v2d0qp$3dlkm$1@dont-email.me> <v2d1io$3dplm$1@dont-email.me> <v2evl5$3snmj$1@dont-email.me> <v2g2dp$3ugq$1@dont-email.me> <v2hkkl$ggq9$1@dont-email.me> <v2ibhe$ksut$1@dont-email.me> <v2k8go$1363g$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 17:55:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9557ecc38a2c6e613b1947df9dd7fc56"; logging-data="1319282"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19rx/NTC3udK1jcxOvnnYEc" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:XUrC869snv37QzBwN3vRaKbnL08= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v2k8go$1363g$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 11280 On 5/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-21 14:36:29 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/21/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-20 17:48:40 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> 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(...)))) >>> >>> No, it doesn't. It is a syntax error to have the same symbol on ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========