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: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:14:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 206
Message-ID: <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vr2jki$2deaa$2@dont-email.me>
 <vr2jvg$2d3ah$2@dont-email.me> <vr2km8$2deaa$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr2l20$2d3ah$3@dont-email.me> <vr2m8j$2deaa$7@dont-email.me>
 <vr2mji$2d3ah$5@dont-email.me> <vr2qmt$2ij53$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr2r34$2d3ah$7@dont-email.me> <vr2tti$2kq04$3@dont-email.me>
 <vr3u4l$3idjs$2@dont-email.me> <vr4kkr$48ff$2@dont-email.me>
 <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:14:03 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="afb31210ca7da24b7fdc70cf1e1bf540";
	logging-data="113178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jJMJxZRV8qrwkuQdXq1r6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+E02wuxc+6WQzaws2/3CKKwHfEA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250320-10, 3/20/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10311

On 3/19/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/19/25 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/18/25 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But "encoding" knowledge, isn't a logic system.
>> Unless you bother to pay attention to the details
>> of how this of encoded.
> 
> But "Encoded Knowledge" isn't a logic system. PERIOD. BYU DEFINITION. 
> That would just be a set of axioms. Note, Logic system must also have a 
> set of rules of relationships and how to manipulate them, 

Yes stupid I already specified those 150 times.
TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS.

> and that needs 
> more that just expressing them as knowledge.
> 

NOT AT ALL DUMB BUNNY, for all the expressions
that are proved completely true entirely on the basis of
their meaning expressed in language they only need a
connection this semantic meaning to prove that they
are true.

>>
>>>
>>> Part of the problem is that most of what we call "Human Knowledge" 
>>> isn't logically defined truth, but is just "Emperical Knowledge", for 
>>> which we 
>>
>> The set of human knowledge that can be expressed
>> in language provides the means to compute True(X).
> 
> Of course not, as then True(x) just can't handle a statement whose truth 
> is currently unknown, which it MUST be able to handle
> 

It employs the same algorithm as Prolog:
Can X be proven on the basis of Facts?

>>
>> The actual smell of a rose cannot be expressed using
>> language.
> 
> Maybe, depends on your definitions. Of course, part of the problem is 
> that the "smell of a rose" is actually a subject thing, so not directly 
> related to knowledge. Of course that concept blows apart large parts of 

NO STUPID IT DOES NOT. PLEASE QUIT BEING A MORON.
WHEN I TELL YOU SOMETHING FIFTY TIMES YOU SHOULD
NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT LEAST ONCE.

> your theory. Much of what is commonly called "Human Knowledge" isn't 
> actually knowledge, but subjective opinions that have been agreed by the 

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========