Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Analytic Expressions of language not linked to their semantic meaning are simply untrue
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:03:28 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <v8cr4g$1gk19$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me> <v8a4vf$uhll$1@dont-email.me> <v8aqh7$11ivs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="71988b1b9197e762e3fd586009a80784";
	logging-data="1593385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DhhhOkEQdfZCSSVjdEk/k"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vDe8tppesErd4F2IihQUmKbtsgQ=
Bytes: 2623

On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> The truth about every expression of language that can be known
>>> to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
>>> that a lack of connection simply means untrue.
>> 
>> Does that really mean something? If the significance of the lack of
>> connection is restricted to sentences where the connection exists
>> then it seems that you are talking about nothing.
>> 
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/
> I had to redefine the analytic side of the analytic/synthetic
> distinction because Quine convinced most everyone that this
> distinction does not exist.

You cannot redefine side wihout redefining the other side and the
distinction itself. Is your redefinition equivalent to the one
at https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/ or did
you find out that that distincition is not the one that exists?

> Every expression x of (formal or natural) language L that
> can be connected to the its semantic meaning in L by a
> sequence of truth preserving operations is true in L.
> The same thing applies to ~x making x false in L.

That does not mean anything aunless you define "truth preserving
operations" and how they connect semantic meanings to expressions.

> When x and ~x are both unprovable in L then x is not a
> truth-bearer in L.

Can you prove that every expression that is true in L by your definition
is provable by the rules of L?

-- 
Mikko