Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:19:59 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <vrojnv$22boq$1@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> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me> <vrjqv6$1l2bf$6@dont-email.me> <vrmgqq$4mfv$1@dont-email.me> <vrmkdu$5bpl$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 10:20:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="37866a6b33007acdf0a2a280f5c416ae";
	logging-data="2174746"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184vrFynH69zc2UZS5Mvrsa"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2yhh78ch90HZ2Not05hUMKkjlvM=
Bytes: 10592

On 2025-03-22 15:19:26 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/22/2025 9:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-21 13:52:38 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 3/21/2025 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-21 03:49:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course it has. Meanings of the words "undecidability" and
>>>> "undefinability" and related words are a part of human knowledge,
>>>> and so are Gödel's completeness and incopleteness theorems as
>>>> well as Tarski's undefinability theorem.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> My system has no undecidability or undefinability itself yet
>>> can explain these issues with inferior systems.
>> 
>> That is not proven. Nor is proven that your system is consistent.
>> Nor that your system exists.
> 
> The definition of the set of every element of human
> general knowledge that can be expressed using language
> prevents inconsistency, incompleteness and undecidability
> within this set.

It prevents completeness. There are expressions that could be elements
of human general knowledge but aren't.

But human general knowledge is not a theory because there is no way to
know about every expressible claim whether its known to be true.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========