Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 06:44:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <vbrvr7$3im2p$3@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> <vbrhtd$3g0lp$1@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 13:44:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96";
	logging-data="3758169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wWN2W4iXtx0f6Ar5wRqiE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q0yrwTgXlEOXgSWxjMT9Lv9jfaM=
In-Reply-To: <vbrhtd$3g0lp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6891

On 9/11/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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?
> 

I don't need any of that. All that I need to do
is reject the Liar Paradox as invalid input because
it specifies a cycle in its evaluation sequence.
Tarski was simply far too stupid to this this.

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