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: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vrl9ab$2t44r$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me> <vrj8nr$16c78$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me>
 <7d0164a6001fc519a244b7ed4930d757b9bd7ac1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl0tr$2na3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <cc75e1bdfa918eedc80a9230b0484acda284dc56@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl3fn$2nttr$3@dont-email.me>
 <8c4ea7f74348f8becac017bb33d6cab1b30f5e01@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 04:03:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f916a71d8198685241611f1fae38067";
	logging-data="3051675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IBYzfuycM4bcOH/iHnCZV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bYTPYvHnsQmkiDgImdektpGy7EQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8c4ea7f74348f8becac017bb33d6cab1b30f5e01@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250321-4, 3/21/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4876

On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that analytic knowledge is limited to the
>>>>>>>>>> set of knowledge that can be expressed using language or
>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to elements
>>>>>>>>>> of this set.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which just means that you have stipulated yourself out of all 
>>>>>>>>> classical logic, since Truth is different than Knowledge. In a 
>>>>>>>>> good logic system, Knowledge will be a subset of Truth, but you 
>>>>>>>>> have defined that in your system, Truth is a subset of 
>>>>>>>>> Knowledge, so you have it backwards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(X) always returns TRUE for every element in the set
>>>>>>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>>>>>>> It never gets confused by paradoxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not useful unless it returns TRUE for no X that contradicts anything
>>>>>>> that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't parse that.
>>>>>>  > (a) Not useful unless
>>>>>>  > (b) it returns TRUE for
>>>>>>  > (c) no X that contradicts anything
>>>>>>  > (d) that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> Because my system begins with basic facts and actual facts
>>>>>> can't contradict each other and no contradiction can be
>>>>>> formed by applying only truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>> basic facts there are no contradictions in the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you system doesn't because you don't actually understand what 
>>>>> you are trying to define.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Human Knowledge" is full of contradictions and incorrect statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adittedly, most of them can be resolved by properly putting the 
>>>>> statements into context, but the problem is that for some 
>>>>> statement, the context isn't precisely known or the statement is 
>>>>> known to be an approximation of unknown accuracy, so doesn't 
>>>>> actually specify a "fact".
>>>>
>>>> It is self evidence that for every element of the set of human
>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language that undecidability
>>>> cannot possibly exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove something.
>>>
>>
>> When the proof is only syntactic then it isn't directly
>> connected to any meaning.
> 
> But Formal Logic proofs ARE just "syntactic"
> 
>>
>> When the body of human general knowledge has all of its
>> semantics encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of
>> Semantics then a proof means validation of truth.
> 
> Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not need to be 
> able to be validated.
> 

True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.

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