Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 06:57:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vc96eo$2qm11$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>
 <vc74cf$2948m$1@dont-email.me> <vc8o7j$2nsv4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 13:57:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="36d0389ed0f85457a25604798effec17";
	logging-data="2971681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7E+AXjmqu4kEVdc5DIw38"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YcMj6VSrZjhsuSLmsHzj6bRKAC0=
In-Reply-To: <vc8o7j$2nsv4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5799

On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions
> of claims that that are not language specific.
> 
>> It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
>> never had any inherent meaning.
> 
> Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the
> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
> 

Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.

There was point point in time when words came into
existence.

>> When one realizes that
>> every other human language does this differently then
>> this is easier to see. {cats are animals} == 貓是動物
> 

https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

> Words are often different in other languages (though e.g. Swedish "cat"
> or Maltese "qattus" are not very different). Variations of meanings at
> least for this word tend to be smaller than variations within a single
> language.
> 




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