Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!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: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:36:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <vbpi1q$2vfau$5@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>
 <vbnh2a$2gv88$2@dont-email.me>
 <5f1023bb01bb3a4678d0398416e2081e1611d4bf@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 15:36:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a3586ad0dea434fbe80fe97605af752";
	logging-data="3128670"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19crMEE3579lnweb8bZYDEf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LVUhc5S2dMu8Ozi5zNit+UdJCqI=
In-Reply-To: <5f1023bb01bb3a4678d0398416e2081e1611d4bf@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6185

On 9/9/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/9/24 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> So, you admit that you system can't have a truth predicate per the 
> required definition either.
> 

No jackass. I admit that my truth predicate is smart
enough to reject invalid input you freaking moron.
I admit the every system that does not do this is AFU !


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