Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:59:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vskthv$378kj$16@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrhami$3fbja$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me> <vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me> <vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me>
 <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me> <vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me>
 <0306c3c2d4a6d05a8bb7441c0b23d325aeac3d7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvnvv$ke3p$1@dont-email.me> <vs0egm$1cl6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs1f7j$296sp$2@dont-email.me> <vs3ad6$2o1a$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4sjd$1c1ja$8@dont-email.me> <vs63o2$2nal3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6v2l$39556$17@dont-email.me> <vs8hia$13iam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs8uoq$1fccq$2@dont-email.me> <vsb4in$14lqk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsb9d5$19ka5$1@dont-email.me> <vsdlq8$3shbn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsemub$th5g$4@dont-email.me> <vsg1gh$2ehsf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsh9ko$3mdkb$3@dont-email.me> <vsj0sn$1h0sm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsjn88$26s7s$5@dont-email.me>
 <64f12897930df51566aada9744e77a09ad83dab0@i2pn2.org>
 <vskotr$378kj$6@dont-email.me>
 <3e66396147f21a4fff87b8bd36612fe3d1fe72ac@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 04:59:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3670ccff229fdc0c136848dacf82765a";
	logging-data="3383955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19I623S1ByV+Ifaae9Vif4E"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NY7QplrOjhUyIZOfxDbPJQCRFS8=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250402-4, 4/2/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <3e66396147f21a4fff87b8bd36612fe3d1fe72ac@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4122

On 4/2/2025 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/2/25 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/2/2025 5:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/2/25 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/2025 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-04-01 18:00:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/1/2025 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-31 18:29:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-30 11:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have never expressed any disagreement with the starting 
>>>>>>>>> points of
>>>>>>>>> Tarski's proof. You have ever claimed that any of Tarski's 
>>>>>>>>> inferences
>>>>>>>>> were not truth preserving. But you have claimed that the last 
>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>> these truth preservin transformation has produced a false 
>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE to specify True(X) ∧ ~Provable(X)
>>>>>>>> (what Tarski proved) when-so-ever True(X) ≡ Provable(X).
>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski's proof was not about provability. Gödel had already proved
>>>>>>> that there are unprovable true sentences. Tarski's work is about
>>>>>>> definability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>>>> Step (3) is self-contradictory, thus his whole proof fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant. As Traski clearly points out, (3) can be derived from 
>>>>> (1) and
>>>>> (2) with a truth preserving transformation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (3) is false, thus his whole proof is dead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And if (3) is false, then one of (1) or (2) must be false, 
>>
>> (1) is merely a false assumption that stands on its own.
> 
> No, (1) is the result of a previous proof.
> 

Prove that. I can prove otherwise. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

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