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
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 13:26:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <vrpjop$2qbhf$5@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> <vrojnv$22boq$1@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 19:26:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51";
	logging-data="2960943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zirozlsuxoRi3rl8pURg8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MfQpXwp57UeDbZjA+YEcqYVI/Ew=
In-Reply-To: <vrojnv$22boq$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 11741

On 3/23/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========