Path: ...!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 08:46:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <vbpikk$2vfau$6@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> <vbme4f$2bu08$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbmrnq$2dpff$1@dont-email.me> <vbp0r2$2scm4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 15:47:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a3586ad0dea434fbe80fe97605af752";
	logging-data="3128670"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184pqvi5U/VI86P0yNReBeV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uq6Es3lcpcwMK9sJcMs7V2zCh3U=
In-Reply-To: <vbp0r2$2scm4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6069

On 9/10/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-09 13:03:54 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/9/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-08 13:24:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> A stipulative definition is a temporary hack when it is not clear
>>> what the definition should be or when a need for a good definitino
>>> is not expected. A stipluative definition is not valid outside the
>>> opus or discussion where it is presented.
>>>
>>>> *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
>>>
>>> With that definition Tarski proved that linguistic truth is not
>>> identifiable.
>>>
>>
>> No he did not. Tarski's proof that begins with the Liar Paradox
>> gets rejected at step (3).
> 
> In the system Tarski was using (i.e. ordinary logic) a proof cannot
> be rejected.
> 

If the system is too stupid to reject invalid input
then it is too stupid. Ordinary logic is too stupid
to even say the Liar Paradox that I what I invented
minimal type theory.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF

LP := ~True(LP)
(0) not  (1)
(1) true (0) // cycle in digraph

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