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 ==========