Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
 between finite strings
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 12:09:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <vc74cf$2948m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb8ku7$3m85g$2@dont-email.me> <vc1910$rkci$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc1ioa$tcfb$3@dont-email.me> <vc3hb8$1cgbd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc44vt$1ge14$1@dont-email.me> <vc662i$22r9n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 19:09:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c64244628d7897ab0f159183017b0d46";
	logging-data="2396438"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193ORqDCNaRaRha/H41D2rf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HbheFl0dH0YrzzW4V/kbtUd9xYk=
In-Reply-To: <vc662i$22r9n$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9285

On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
>>>>>> between finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is related to*
>>>>>> Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Yet equally applies to formal languages*
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
>>>>> language.
>>>>
>>>> Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>
>>> Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else
>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
>>>> statement which is true.
>>>
>>> That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem 
>>> means
>>> that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary 
>>> theorems
>>
>> a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems.
>>
>>> or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string 
>>> is a
>>> member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Some of these relations between finite strings are
>>>> elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
>>>
>>> No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems
>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
>>>
>>
>> One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
> 
> There are no elementary theorems of English.
> 

There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.

It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning. When one realizes that
every other human language does this differently then
this is easier to see. {cats are animals} == 貓是動物

>> The only way that way know that the set named "cats" is a subset
>> of the set named "animals" is that it is stipulated to be true is
>> that it is stipulated.
> 
> The meanings of most English words (including "cat", "is", and "animal"
> do not come from stipulations but tradition. The tradition is not
> always uniform although there is not much variation with "cat" or
> "animal" and what there is that does not affet the truth of "cats are
> animals". The answers may vary if you ask about more extic beings like
> sponges or slime molds.
> 
> The statement "cats are animals" is regarded as true because nobody has
> seen or even heard about any being that satisfies the traditional meaning
> of "cat" but not the raditional meaning of "animal".
> 
>> The set of properties that belong to the named set of "cats" and the set
>> of "animals" is also stipulated to be true. "cats" <have> "lungs".
> 
> Sharks are usually consederd "animals" but don't have lungs. THerefore
> "lungs" is not relevant above.
> 
>>>> Thus True(L,x) merely means there is a sequence of truth
>>>> preserving operations from x in L to elementary theorems
>>>> of L.
>>>
>>> Usually that prperty of a string is not called True. Instead, a non- 
>>> empty sequence of strings where each member is an elementary theorem 
>>> or can be
>>> inferred from strings nearer the beginning of the sequence by the 
>>> inference
>>> rules is called a proof. The set of theorems is the set that contains 
>>> every
>>> string that is he last members of a proof and no other string.
>>
>> The elementary theorems (ET) are stipulated to have the semantic property
>> of Boolean true.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. More importantly, they are defined to have the property
> of being theorems. A theorem may be true about someting and false about
> something else.
> 
>> Other expressions x are only true when x can be derived by applying a
>> sequence of truth preserving operations to (ET) (typically back- 
>> chained inference).
> 
> The meaning of "truth preserving" depends on the meaning of "true", which
> is usually not used in formal systems. Instead, non-elemetary theorems
> are regured to be inferred with the inference rules of the theory (usually
> borrowed from some logic).
> 
>>> Postulates, theoresm, inference rules and theorems are not parts of a
>>> language but together with language constritue a large system that is
>>> called a theory.
>>
>> That is typically the way it is done yet becomes difficult to understand
>> when applied to natural language. We never think of English as dividable
>> into separate theories.
> 
> That is the way formal theories are best presented. Natural languages are
> not formal and not theories.
> 
>> We construe English as also containing all of the semantics of English.
> 
> It often is. However, much can be said abour English and other languages
> without mentioning semantics, for example that the typcal word order is
> that the subject is before the verb and the object, if there is one, is
> after the verb.
> 
>> We never have systems of English whether the same expression is the
>> truth in one system and a lie in another system.
> 
> Of course we have. The meaning of a sentence often depends on where
> or when it is said. For exampe "France is a kingdom" used to be true
> but is not anymore.
> 
>>> In order to discuss meanings and truth a still larger
>>> system is needed where the strings of a theory are related to something
>>> else (for example real world objects or strings of another language).
>>
>> Not really. When we have a separate model theory then crucial
>> details get overlooked.
> 
> Not necessarily, and crucial detains can be overlooked anyway.
> A separate model theory forces at least some consideration of
> semantics.
> 
>> When we look at a language (including all of its semantics as)
>> relations between finite strings then we can see all of the
>> details with none overlooked.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========