Path: 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 ---ZFC
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:49:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <vrpvl2$35a4m$6@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>
 <4702eef1b0ace44f2a334894a27ead737d674fe6@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmk28$5bpl$4@dont-email.me>
 <4d728cda161b629a6fa645a938580551566fda78@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmvqi$cvat$10@dont-email.me>
 <0b09ece8b64c4c2f9cd572fe5f5e4a2ae5937348@i2pn2.org>
 <vro2ej$1c9ia$4@dont-email.me>
 <69b25e8cd6afbdebdb8def529499350816ca1eb7@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 22:49:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51";
	logging-data="3319958"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19aJMOITUgPL4lsg1FaUXzB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rawzvYGB1jYHdCd5Xvrpjz7/CPY=
In-Reply-To: <69b25e8cd6afbdebdb8def529499350816ca1eb7@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message

On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/23/25 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/25 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 5:11 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> The liar sentence is contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Not self-evident was Gödel's disproof of that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Not if X is unknown (but still true).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must pay complete attention to ALL of my words
>>>>>> or you get the meaning that I specify incorrectly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that statement, you don't get to change the meaning 
>>>>> of the core terms and stay in the system, so you are just admitting 
>>>>> that all your work is based on strawmen, and thus frauds.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>    In the exact same way that ZFC totally screwed up
>>>>    and never resolved Russell's Paradox because they
>>>>    were forbidden to limit how sets are defined.
>>>>
>>>>    When the definition of a set allowed pathological
>>>>    self-reference they should have construed this
>>>>    as infallible and immutable.
>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IN other words, you admit that you can't refute what I said, so you 
>>> just go off beat.
>>>
>>
>> By the freaking concrete example that I provided
>> YES YOU DO GET TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE TERMS.
>> The original set theory is now named naive set theory.
>>
> 
> No you don't, and your example does say you can.
> 
> ZFC didn't "redefine" set theory,

Then why the Hell is the original set theory now called
naive set theory? Might as well have called it clueless
brain-dead set theory.

The gist of the notion of the set of general knowledge
that can be expressed in language was mostly inconceivable
until Montague Grammar of natural language semantics.
This provides the means for a computer to have actual
understanding of all of these ideas.

A True(X) predicate for a set of knowledge is merely
a membership algorithm for this set. A Tree of knowledge
can be searched in finite time.

>  they defined a new set theory, ZFC Set 
> Theory that got adopted by the community,
> 
> Since you are not "the community", you don't get to change the meaning 
> the generic term points to,.
> 
> Since you think you do, you are just showing that you don't 
> fundamentally understand how words get their meaning.
> 
> Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.


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