| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2m0m5$1dcof$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.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 (agreement) Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 18:55:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 291 Message-ID: <v2m0m5$1dcof$2@dont-email.me> References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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> <v2l4hr$188bi$3@dont-email.me> <v2l87m$19619$1@dont-email.me> <v2lies$1b4kp$1@dont-email.me> <v2ltgl$1nrfv$2@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 01:55:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba728845a682305e7e13b3854d529db3"; logging-data="1487631"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uANoAIfP8GUcoVJxAmCZ6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:INpiNl2e5Smk3ZpO4BS160fYaqg= In-Reply-To: <v2ltgl$1nrfv$2@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 14406 On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/22/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/22/2024 11:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-22 15:55:39 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========