Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion of {linguistic truth} Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 23:03:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 161 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:03:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc"; logging-data="85240"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HiMf41QcMU7Om2MqXygok" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wfIszQE2JRfUhoFj+1CBArSOssY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8454 On 9/11/2024 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/11/24 8:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/10/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 9/10/24 9:46 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/10/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-09-09 13:03:54 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/9/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-09-08 13:24:56 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:03:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 13:33:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-01 03:04:43 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a justified true belief such that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification is sufficient reason to accept the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the belief. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remaining loophole is the lack of an exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "sufficient reason". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately sufficient reason is correct semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entailment from verified facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is "verified" facts: what is sufficient >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verification? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stipulated to be true is always sufficient: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cats are a know if animal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Insufficient for practtical purposes. You may stipulate that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitroglycerine is not poison but it can kill you anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that the way the linguistic truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually works. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has >>>>>>>>>>>>> been used >>>>>>>>>>>>> by DG Schwartz in 1985. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction >>>>>>>>>>>> yet unequivocal. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a >>>>>>>>>>>> similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>> based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical >>>>>>>>>>>> truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be >>>>>>>>>>>> verified as true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used >>>>>>>>>>> the term. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used >>>>>>>>> it before? >>>>>>>>> Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a >>>>>>>> new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning >>>>>>>> for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A stipulative definition is a temporary hack when it is not clear >>>>>>> what the definition should be or when a need for a good definitino >>>>>>> is not expected. A stipluative definition is not valid outside the >>>>>>> opus or discussion where it is presented. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN* >>>>>>>> When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic >>>>>>>> meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in >>>>>>>> language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the >>>>>>>> True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist. >>>>>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With that definition Tarski proved that linguistic truth is not >>>>>>> identifiable. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No he did not. Tarski's proof that begins with the Liar Paradox >>>>>> gets rejected at step (3). >>>>> >>>>> In the system Tarski was using (i.e. ordinary logic) a proof cannot >>>>> be rejected. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the system is too stupid to reject invalid input >>>> then it is too stupid. Ordinary logic is too stupid >>>> to even say the Liar Paradox that I what I invented >>>> minimal type theory. >>> >>> No, you are too stupid to understand that "rejection" isn't an option, >> >> In other words you are trying to pretend that type mismatch >> error doesn't exist. What is the square root of an actual dead frog? >> The answer must be numeric and it must be correct. >> "rejection" isn't an option >> > > No, just that it can't be a "type mismatch", That is is ridiculously stupid thing to say you are claiming that an actual dead frog has a numeric square root *This has been my original basis since 2012* Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 > as just prior to that > Tarski proved that the statement *WAS* a valid statement. > > You are just proving you don't undertstand what you are reading and just > guessing (incorrectly) what things means, which is one of the methods of > stupidity. Smart people when they come across something they don't > understand, spend so time to learn the meaning, but you are afraid that > the truth will brainwash you, because you have already brainwashed > yourself. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer