Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Sun, 26 May 2024 08:52:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 450
Message-ID: <v2veqj$3e8pb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1mljr$1q5ee$4@dont-email.me> <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> <v2m0m5$1dcof$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2m4lg$1qo0t$1@i2pn2.org> <v2mtkj$1ln2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2ngi3$1or9h$8@dont-email.me> <v2pig4$28a91$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2qp30$2f6v4$1@dont-email.me> <v2s5td$2psu4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2t9ne$2vna0$5@dont-email.me> <v2usea$3be7o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 15:52:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3613483"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gKVboodv0ZL7w0L1eIEhw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:x3LIvtQF30NlbrymTObGU1sf7NQ=
In-Reply-To: <v2usea$3be7o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 22871

On 5/26/2024 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-25 18:13:02 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/25/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-24 19:16:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2024 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-23 13:32:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-23 01:03:44 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========