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: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:44:45 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 204
Message-ID: <vrr2hd$e23q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@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> <vrpjop$2qbhf$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 08:44:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3edb2b95d4b8e02638e23f2f474fbe8a";
	logging-data="460922"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Vp1vF9mIzVAUVnO5Mp8qc"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uGB7WJLq30LomixpUOrWNwoRHO0=
Bytes: 11399

On 2025-03-23 18:26:33 +0000, olcott said:

> 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:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========