Path: ...!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: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion
 of {linguistic truth}
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 14:07:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <vbnh2a$2gv88$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vb0lkb$1c1kh$2@dont-email.me> <vb1hdi$1feme$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4erg$2s0uc$1@dont-email.me> <vb6hv7$39dvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71fn$3b4ub$5@dont-email.me> <vbbm40$8k2u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbc9t5$bdtb$1@dont-email.me> <vbem5f$pont$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeod1$punj$1@dont-email.me> <vbh1n7$19hd9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlv7$1c7u5$10@dont-email.me> <vbjq33$1shau$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbk8j9$1u1js$4@dont-email.me>
 <963deb8a36d48f5f8f47e795dff037cbfebe9486@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 21:07:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ce886c54a33fbb99da3cdb312c5f423c";
	logging-data="2653448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PPelmb+KLu2+6KkDnG662"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CvHTxz4ntXEe8B1Pn0du4Ja2yfU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <963deb8a36d48f5f8f47e795dff037cbfebe9486@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6710

On 9/8/2024 12:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/8/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:03:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 13:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 03:04:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the belief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remaining loophole is the lack of an exact definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "sufficient reason".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately sufficient reason is correct semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>> entailment from verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is "verified" facts: what is sufficient 
>>>>>>>>>>> verification?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stipulated to be true is always sufficient:
>>>>>>>>>> Cats are a know if animal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Insufficient for practtical purposes. You may stipulate that
>>>>>>>>> nitroglycerine is not poison but it can kill you anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that <is> the way the linguistic truth actually works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has been used
>>>>>>> by DG Schwartz in 1985.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction
>>>>>> yet unequivocal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a
>>>>>> similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely
>>>>>> based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical
>>>>>> truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be
>>>>>> verified as true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used the term.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM
>>>
>>> Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used it 
>>> before?
>>> Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept?
>>>
>>
>> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a
>> new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning
>> for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>>
>> *LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN*
>> When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic
>> meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in
>> language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the
>> True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist.
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott
>>
>>
> If that is your claim, then a statement is Linguistically FALSE if there 
> is NOT such a connection (verses there is a connection to its negation), 
> since THAT is the definiton of the Truth Predicate of Tarski, it results 
> in TRUE if the statement is True, or FALSE if the statement is either 
> FALSE or not actually a truth bearer, and it is that later part that 
> causes the problem.
> 

LP = "this sentence is not true"
according to MY truth predicate
~True(LP) & ~True(~LP) MEANING NOT ALLOWED IN ANY FORMAL
SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FREAKING BEATER OF TRUTH.

This sentence is not true: "this sentence is not true"
IS TRUE BECAUSE THE SECOND SENTENCE IS NOT A TRUTH BEARER.
THIS CONFUSED THE HELL OUT OF TARSKI.

This sentence is not true: "a fish"
IS TRUE BECAUSE THE SECOND SENTENCE IS NOT A TRUTH BEARER.

> The problem arises because if the language L can express a statement like:
> 
> X is defined to be ~True(L, X)
> 

Proven to have an cycle in its evaluation sequence
thus not a freaking truth bearer.

Is "a fish" True? No
Is "a fish" False? No

> Then if True(L, X) is false, then X, since it is the negation of that, 
> must be TRUE, which leads to a contradiction as we have just shown that 
> True(L, x) just returned FALSE for a TRUE statement.
> 
> Note, that the major part of the proof, that you tend to overlook, is 
> showing that in the system L, based on the minimal requirements 
> specified, that such a statement CAN be expressed.
> 
> You "Logic" tryies to say that it needs to "Reject" the statement, but 
> "rejection" is not a possible result, BY DEFINITION, non-true statements 
> are just false, even if they are non-sense.
> 

In other words you are too stupid to not reject
an incoherent definition.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer