| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vr8o53$3q301$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 10:57:07 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <vr8o53$3q301$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:57:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f09dc9ed91866ae6cfbd32fc3804a87";
logging-data="4000769"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Zk/b99G72SLHhMTTfL2vW"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GbICi+s/KeoPcvzNLJ5d9CNp4l4=
On 2025-03-17 01:50:24 +0000, olcott said:
> On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/16/25 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>> We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
>>>> That does not disprove Tarski.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He said that this is impossible and no
>>> counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.
>>> True(GC) == FALSE Cannot be proven true AKA unknown
>>> True(LP) == FALSE Not a truth-bearer
>>>
>>
>>
>> But if x is what you are saying is
>
> A True(X) predicate can be defined and Tarski never
> showed that it cannot.
>
> True(X) only returns TRUE when a a sequence of truth
> preserving operations can derive X from the set of basic
> facts and returns false otherwise.
By this criterion True("There is no truth predicate") is TRUE.
--
Mikko