Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vrl65j$2qtdu$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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 21:09:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <vrl65j$2qtdu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@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>
 <vrkqnt$2h2aq$3@dont-email.me>
 <829a8bc81663a35c224655ab2d5394505bf03a3e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 03:09:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1438e1cf2a9c866560bbb71c914d5ccd";
	logging-data="2979262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+u1GWx/jmszyBAIcrRoAJH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W+DXEc82LCtWWdS6VQHkusowqos=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250321-4, 3/21/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <829a8bc81663a35c224655ab2d5394505bf03a3e@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10629

On 3/21/2025 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/21/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========