Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vrej64$116jv$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: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 16:09:08 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 70 Message-ID: <vrej64$116jv$1@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> <vrc3ev$2m36k$4@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 15:09:09 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="decd6b9cbf61ad7ef6196e53b260ceae"; logging-data="1088127"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BWh0h5HaxJ7mauRjganvf" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:TfLe8mf7u6xbzoZz3tIp2Yn1GZ0= On 2025-03-18 15:28:31 +0000, olcott said: > 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. That depends on "the set of basic facts". OK if they really are facts but otherwise anything is possible. >>> 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. Depends on your definition of "sufficiently". The truth of a sentence depends on interpretation, so it is not determined by the real world. -- Mikko