Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 23:03:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 161
Message-ID: <vbtp60$2j7o$2@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>
 <c4803b9d5aeb1ca4b34123be153cf159ab7516bc@i2pn2.org>
 <vbs0p3$3im2p$6@dont-email.me>
 <c43b056557c90fb4faa5ef0039c28602ef1d485c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:03:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc";
	logging-data="85240"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HiMf41QcMU7Om2MqXygok"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wfIszQE2JRfUhoFj+1CBArSOssY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <c43b056557c90fb4faa5ef0039c28602ef1d485c@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8454

On 9/11/2024 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/11/24 8:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/10/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/10/24 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, you are too stupid to understand that "rejection" isn't an option, 
>>
>> In other words you are trying to pretend that type mismatch
>> error doesn't exist. What is the square root of an actual dead frog?
>> The answer must be numeric and it must be correct.
>> "rejection" isn't an option
>>
> 
> No, just that it can't be a "type mismatch", 

That is is ridiculously stupid thing to say
you are claiming that an actual dead frog has a numeric square root

*This has been my original basis since 2012*

Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the following 
definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote:

By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the 
objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals, 
properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of 
such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that 
sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation 
R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types 
fitting together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944


> as just prior to that 
> Tarski proved that the statement *WAS* a valid statement.
> 
> You are just proving you don't undertstand what you are reading and just 
> guessing (incorrectly) what things means, which is one of the methods of 
> stupidity. Smart people when they come across something they don't 
> understand, spend so time to learn the meaning, but you are afraid that 
> the truth will brainwash you, because you have already brainwashed 
> yourself.


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