Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion of {linguistic truth}
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 10:46:53 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <vbrhtd$3g0lp$1@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> <vbpikk$2vfau$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:46:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b12f7c7333227c0655464d8aa448511";
	logging-data="3670713"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DFXqPYLTBGL3CFet8sD5Q"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IaxZeOsugJg5uxX5KhQBtA809Gk=
Bytes: 6197

On 2024-09-10 13:46:59 +0000, olcott said:

> 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

For ordinary first order logic it is possible to make a program that
reads a text file and checks whether it is a vlaid proof. Is the same
possible for your Minimal Type Theory?

-- 
Mikko