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
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:25:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <vsl2j0$3o5ji$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrmteo$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>
 <vskv2l$378kj$17@dont-email.me> <vsl04q$3a1db$4@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 06:25:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3670ccff229fdc0c136848dacf82765a";
	logging-data="3937906"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cWco/OebVk3kCW1wR1YbX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ppXMohZ6+P1yAxPXwxQFtyi6w4s=
In-Reply-To: <vsl04q$3a1db$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250402-4, 4/2/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 4/2/2025 10:43 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> We don't have to.  It was scrutinized by many experts for decades.
> 
> The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is wrong.

Appeal to authority is an error.
Tarski says that he does not derive (1)
by applying 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