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
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:45:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <vrjqi5$1l2bf$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@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>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6jm$14omc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:45:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d0856e096378cf2978d5f019a300a2e7";
	logging-data="1739119"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VAopT5mWvU0Z0xPr9fqWY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z0yGJhDfPvwFtcdb1XuWjaBkEEk=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250321-2, 3/21/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vrj6jm$14omc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7901

On 3/21/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-03-20 22:14:01 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> The set of the known truth preserving operations is a "small" subset of
> the set of the entire body of human general knowledge. Most of what is
> known is of different nature.
> 

YES


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