Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vreirl$10s2d$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 --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:03:33 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <vreirl$10s2d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me> <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org> <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me> <vrc02r$2m5nk$1@dont-email.me> <vrd89u$3oqkg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:03:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="decd6b9cbf61ad7ef6196e53b260ceae";
	logging-data="1077325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NZM2t9/Vvx3NmIua/2RtE"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EZKal8WpLIizNp/yUCXQlWaNou4=

On 2025-03-19 01:57:18 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/18/2025 9:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-18 13:36:04 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 3/18/2025 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-17 15:40:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/16/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/16/25 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sure he did. Using a mathematical system like Godel, we can construct a 
>>>>>> statement x, which is only true it is the case that True(x) is false, 
>>>>>> but this interperetation can only be seen in the metalanguage created 
>>>>>> from the language in the proof, similar to Godel meta that generates 
>>>>>> the proof testing relationship that shows that G can only be true if it 
>>>>>> can not be proven as the existance of a number to make it false, 
>>>>>> becomes a proof that the statement is true and thus creates a 
>>>>>> contradiction in the system.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That you can't understand that, or get confused by what is in the 
>>>>>> language, which your True predicate can look at, and in the 
>>>>>> metalanguage, which it can not, but still you make bold statements that 
>>>>>> you can not prove, and have been pointed out to be wrong, just shows 
>>>>>> how stupid you are.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right, but needs to do so even if the path to x is infinite in length.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This never fails on the entire set of human general
>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But that isn't a logic system, so you are just proving your stupidity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Note, "The Entire set of Human General Knowledge" does not contain the 
>>>>>> contents of Meta-systems like Tarski uses, as there are an infinite 
>>>>>> number of them possible, and thus to even try to express them all 
>>>>>> requires an infinite number of axioms, and thus your system fails to 
>>>>>> meet the requirements. Once you don't have the meta-systems, Tarski 
>>>>>> proof can create a metasystem, that you system doesn't know about, 
>>>>>> which creates the problem statement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is not fooled by pathological self-reference or
>>>>>>> self-contradiction.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of course it is, because it can't detect all forms of such references.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And, even if it does detect it, what answer does True(x) produce when 
>>>>>> we have designed (via a metalanguage) that the statement x in the 
>>>>>> language will be true if and only if !True(x), which he showed can be 
>>>>>> done in ANY system with sufficient power, which your universal system 
>>>>>> must have.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sorry, you are just showing how little you understand what you are 
>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need no metalanguage. A single formalized natural
>>>>> language can express its own semantics as connections
>>>>> between expressions of this same language.
>>>> 
>>>> A nice formal language has the symbols and syntax of the first order logic
>>>> with equivalence and the following additional symbols:
>>> 
>>> I am not talking about a trivially simple formal
>>> language. I am talking about very significant
>>> extensions to something like Montague grammar.
>> 
>> That kind of language should be able to express some kind of semantics
>> of itself. But it may be hard to prevent a different interpretaion of
>> the same language from specifying different semantics for itself.
>> 
> 
> All of the semantics is formalized syntactically with no
> separate interpretation needed that is why Montague semantics
> is called Montague Grammar.

Assuming that the intended semantic of Montague Grammar is applied.
If you apply different semantics a different result may be possible.

> It is all formalizes as relations between finite strings that
> may be abbreviated as GUIDs.
> 
>>> The language must be expressive enough to fully
>>> encode any and all details of each element of the
>>> entire body of human general knowledge that can
>>> be expressed using language. Davidson semantics
>>> provides another encoding.
>> 
>> Including future additions to human general knowledge.
>> 
> YES
> 
>>> To address the objection to these forms of encoding
>>> that they ignore the important source of meaning
>>> of linguistics pragmatics context, what I am proposing
>>> also includes a situation specific knowledge ontology
>>> that directly encode the full context of the specific
>>> situation.
>> 
>> Your proposal means a lot of work and therefore a long time.
> 
> Not with LLM  systems.

Even with them. Of course having powerful tools helps.

-- 
Mikko