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: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:54:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <vrkqnt$2h2aq$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me>
 <7e65b56232049fe2b950c1502d33545501e1f185@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:54:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1cb52912189541cd08e1b1b0e565a396";
	logging-data="2656602"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bvgaQx5wxoj6rrjqg/Kq9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EY+U6MybaUM/QjO8fCfnoSfoxdQ=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250321-4, 3/21/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <7e65b56232049fe2b950c1502d33545501e1f185@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10019

On 3/21/2025 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/20/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/20/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> And thus you just admitted that your system doesn't even QUALIFY to 
>>> be the system that Tarski is talking about.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand that fact, because apparently you can't 
>>> actually understand any logic system more coplicated than what Prolog 
>>> can handle.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========