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: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 07:05:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <vbs12e$3im2p$7@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>
 <vbpi1q$2vfau$5@dont-email.me>
 <cda654ba0f218115e66d5cda4d150cc3ff8d7d4e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:05:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96";
	logging-data="3758169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DFn5sezlojRwx266ael6E"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JGHoqqAZgsIgmG3rskkiCQYn6eM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <cda654ba0f218115e66d5cda4d150cc3ff8d7d4e@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7376

On 9/10/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/10/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 !
>>
>>
> 
> On other words, you admit that it doesn't meet the requirements to give 
> a TRUE/FALSE answer for EVERY input.
> 

You already said that "a fish" is neither true nor false.
x = "a fish"
Boolean True(English,  x) == false
Boolean True(English, ~x) == false

if (~True(English,x) & ~True(English, ~x))
   printf("x is not a truth bearer");

> In other words, you admit you are too stupid to know what you are 
> talking about, because you don't actually know the definition of a truth 
> predicate.
> 
> You are just trying to declair that everything is just AFU, but you 
> con't actually "fix" it, becasuse you don't know what you need to do to 
> build another system, because that is to hard for you to understand from 
> the "Clift Notes" you have studied about logic.
> 
> Sorry, that IS the facts,


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