| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v2msns$1lhu4$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 10:54:36 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 198 Message-ID: <v2msns$1lhu4$1@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:54:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f14d4928c1894339583f635d0e329b9"; logging-data="1755076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+LcdTUwOArwmAGMSf2YLxW" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:/GHiqZ1TZB6nn1K6DXfjc+D0WJM= Bytes: 11374 On 2024-05-22 19:52:59 +0000, olcott said: > 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. >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> both sides ":=" so the expansion is not justified. >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Your quote omitted important details. One is that the claim is not >>>> true about every theory but is about first order arithmetic and its >>>> extension. Another one is that ϕ(x) is that the claim is about >>>> every formula ϕ(x). >>>> >>> >>> *The whole article is about self-reference* >>> The ONLY detail that I am referring to is that it is conventional to >>> formalize self-reference incorrectly. >>> >>> *Richard and both fixed that* >>> >>> 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) ... >>> >>> x := y means x is defined to be another name for y >> >> Another name for the meaning of y. Therefore any pair of sentences that >> are otherwise equal but one contains x where rhe other contains y is a pair >> of equally true sentences. For example, if p defined as ~True(L, ⟨p⟩) > > I have no idea what you mean by the weird ⟨p⟩ quotes. You posted a pointer to a web page and qutoed (incorrectly) a piece ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========