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
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:25:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vskv2l$378kj$17@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@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>
 <vskthv$378kj$16@dont-email.me> <vsku58$3a1db$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 05:25:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3670ccff229fdc0c136848dacf82765a";
	logging-data="3383955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qtauruU/1Btb4kRNH0jKc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wejzy780X0qjpMU6s1ANUFy+zZw=
In-Reply-To: <vsku58$3a1db$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250402-4, 4/2/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4501

On 4/2/2025 10:09 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> That you can prove otherwise is conclusively proven false by your 
> inability to tell that (3) was derived from steps (1) and (2) by simple 
> truth-preserving operations.
> 

I have challenged both you and Richard to show that
(1) was derived by truth preserving operations.

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