Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:28:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <vrc3ev$2m36k$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me> <vr8o53$3q301$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr962u$5hr9$1@dont-email.me> <vrc09r$2mb8o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:28:32 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f54d19ec00900e34683d1ff0baf73ce2";
	logging-data="2821332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ehV8TlCvaA6SBcms2GCal"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cSsjs8kgvSfZ/EFyw7XsLUbkrs0=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vrc09r$2mb8o$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250318-4, 3/18/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 3348

On 3/18/2025 9:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-03-17 12:54:53 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/17/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The True(X) predicate only takes formalized Natural Language so that
>> would  be rejected as false.
> 
> No, if we interprete "There is no truth predicate" to represent the
> formalized natural language expression that means that there is no
> turth predicate.
> 

That is already accounted for by the Liar Paradox.
Every self-contradictory expression cannot be derived
from the set of basic facts by applying ONLY truth
preserving operations.

>> LP := ~True(LP) would also be rejected
>> as ~TRUE. The Principle of explosion does not apply truth preserving
>> operations.
> 
> The expression LP := ~True(LP) should be rejected as a syntax error.
> 

Formalized natural language must be able to directly
encode the self-reference of the Liar Paradox
"This sentence is not true" or it is insufficiently
expressive.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer