Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 16:26:03 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <vrmh9r$53on$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org> <vr4t3e$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> <vrl5ec$2qtdu$1@dont-email.me> <cbb8b77102aead1c693ef30c611c265ea0961528@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 15:26:03 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73265710d7ab43a56ef5db5792fd337f";
	logging-data="167703"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JAkmaJITzVlYkrCiPN7Tk"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hS/0kPpM2nFR6btAAv6iOyeTQrQ=
Bytes: 11250

On 2025-03-22 02:31:23 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 3/21/25 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 what Prolog 
>>>>>>> can handle.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This concise specification is air-tight.
>>>>>> The set of all human general knowledge that can be expressed
>>>>>> using language has no undecidability or undefinability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nope. Proven otherwise, and you are just showing your stupidity in 
>>>>> maintaining that claim.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Then try and show ALL OF THE DETAILS OF how when one starts
>>>> with basic facts and only applies truth preserving operations that
>>>> True(X) is not always correct.
>>> 
>>> You have already shown that you don't understand the proof, so why 
>>> should I repeat it,
>>> 
>>> Look at Tarski's FULL paper (and the material he references) and see 
>>> how he develops the expression of x in the language, by working in the 
>>> metalanguage it embed the needed meaning into x
>>> 
>> 
>> I have already specified a system that needs no
>> metalanguage because it has all of its full
>> semantics specified syntactically and I  got
>> the essence of this idea from Gödel back in 2012
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========