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 (GKEUL)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:10:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <vrptcm$35a4m$4@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>
 <vrl9ab$2t44r$3@dont-email.me> <vrmp2s$bc8p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrmt6e$cvat$5@dont-email.me>
 <00e462692040cf570526294a5a8099a5c2e1fe38@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 22:10:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51";
	logging-data="3319958"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NlI5KC33IgkyfJisKqSvW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0PFxLFHQijVh/c2VZSX+pEUicJg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <00e462692040cf570526294a5a8099a5c2e1fe38@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6367

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/25 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2025 11:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-22 03:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> We can believe the "nothing else" part. The rest would require a proof.
>>>
>>
>> True(X) is a predicate implementing a membership algorithm
>> for the body of general knowledge that can be expressed
>> using language.
> 
> Then it isnt a truth predicate, but a Knowledge predicate, and thus you 
> are admitting to just being a liar about all you claimed.
> 

It <is> as I have always said that it <is> a True(X)
predicate for every element of the set of general knowledge
that can be expressed in language.

That you just can't keep track of this is your mistake
not my deception.

It excludes things like what you had for lunch today
what a rose smells like... It includes every word
of every textbook every written encoded in such a
way that it fully understands all of these words.

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