| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vrtu99$32gfg$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge ---ZFC Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:50:33 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 114 Message-ID: <vrtu99$32gfg$1@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:50:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f0cf999c00fadfadc7508b49d8fc2da"; logging-data="3228144"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+D4A7RC8CkwMgJiiwNWvmS" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:lt7qGDV+vRdegB9V5Yg8ZVjV37E= On 2025-03-23 04:24:51 +0000, olcott said: > 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. No, you can't. The nearest you can is to create a new term that is homonymous to an old one. But you can't use two homonymous terms in the same opus. -- Mikko