Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.lang Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context. Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:14:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 206 Message-ID: References: <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org> <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org> <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org> <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org> <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org> <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:14:03 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="afb31210ca7da24b7fdc70cf1e1bf540"; logging-data="113178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jJMJxZRV8qrwkuQdXq1r6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+E02wuxc+6WQzaws2/3CKKwHfEA= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250320-10, 3/20/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10311 On 3/19/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/19/25 5:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/18/25 9:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/18/2025 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-03-17 15:40:22 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/16/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/16/25 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/16/25 11:12 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always >>>>>>>>>>>> succeeds except >>>>>>>>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!! >>>>>>>>>>> That does not disprove Tarski. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He said that this is impossible and no >>>>>>>>>> counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong. >>>>>>>>>> True(GC) == FALSE Cannot be proven true AKA unknown >>>>>>>>>> True(LP) == FALSE Not a truth-bearer >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But if x is what you are saying is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A True(X) predicate can be defined and Tarski never >>>>>>>> showed that it cannot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure he did. Using a mathematical system like Godel, we can >>>>>>> construct a statement x, which is only true it is the case that >>>>>>> True(x) is false, but this interperetation can only be seen in >>>>>>> the metalanguage created from the language in the proof, similar >>>>>>> to Godel meta that generates the proof testing relationship that >>>>>>> shows that G can only be true if it can not be proven as the >>>>>>> existance of a number to make it false, becomes a proof that the >>>>>>> statement is true and thus creates a contradiction in the system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you can't understand that, or get confused by what is in the >>>>>>> language, which your True predicate can look at, and in the >>>>>>> metalanguage, which it can not, but still you make bold >>>>>>> statements that you can not prove, and have been pointed out to >>>>>>> be wrong, just shows how stupid you are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True(X) only returns TRUE when a a sequence of truth >>>>>>>> preserving operations can derive X from the set of basic >>>>>>>> facts and returns false otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, but needs to do so even if the path to x is infinite in >>>>>>> length. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This never fails on the entire set of human general >>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that isn't a logic system, so you are just proving your >>>>>>> stupidity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note, "The Entire set of Human General Knowledge" does not >>>>>>> contain the contents of Meta-systems like Tarski uses, as there >>>>>>> are an infinite number of them possible, and thus to even try to >>>>>>> express them all requires an infinite number of axioms, and thus >>>>>>> your system fails to meet the requirements. Once you don't have >>>>>>> the meta- systems, Tarski proof can create a metasystem, that you >>>>>>> system doesn't know about, which creates the problem statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not fooled by pathological self-reference or >>>>>>>> self-contradiction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it is, because it can't detect all forms of such >>>>>>> references. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, even if it does detect it, what answer does True(x) produce >>>>>>> when we have designed (via a metalanguage) that the statement x >>>>>>> in the language will be true if and only if !True(x), which he >>>>>>> showed can be done in ANY system with sufficient power, which >>>>>>> your universal system must have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, you are just showing how little you understand what you >>>>>>> are talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> We need no metalanguage. A single formalized natural >>>>>> language can express its own semantics as connections >>>>>> between expressions of this same language. >>>>> >>>>> A nice formal language has the symbols and syntax of the first >>>>> order logic >>>>> with equivalence and the following additional symbols: >>>> >>>> I am not talking about a trivially simple formal >>>> language. I am talking about very significant >>>> extensions to something like Montague grammar. >>>> >>>> The language must be expressive enough to fully >>>> encode any and all details of each element of the >>>> entire body of human general knowledge that can >>>> be expressed using language. Davidson semantics >>>> provides another encoding. >>>> >>> >>> But "encoding" knowledge, isn't a logic system. >> Unless you bother to pay attention to the details >> of how this of encoded. > > But "Encoded Knowledge" isn't a logic system. PERIOD. BYU DEFINITION. > That would just be a set of axioms. Note, Logic system must also have a > set of rules of relationships and how to manipulate them, Yes stupid I already specified those 150 times. TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS. > and that needs > more that just expressing them as knowledge. > NOT AT ALL DUMB BUNNY, for all the expressions that are proved completely true entirely on the basis of their meaning expressed in language they only need a connection this semantic meaning to prove that they are true. >> >>> >>> Part of the problem is that most of what we call "Human Knowledge" >>> isn't logically defined truth, but is just "Emperical Knowledge", for >>> which we >> >> The set of human knowledge that can be expressed >> in language provides the means to compute True(X). > > Of course not, as then True(x) just can't handle a statement whose truth > is currently unknown, which it MUST be able to handle > It employs the same algorithm as Prolog: Can X be proven on the basis of Facts? >> >> The actual smell of a rose cannot be expressed using >> language. > > Maybe, depends on your definitions. Of course, part of the problem is > that the "smell of a rose" is actually a subject thing, so not directly > related to knowledge. Of course that concept blows apart large parts of NO STUPID IT DOES NOT. PLEASE QUIT BEING A MORON. WHEN I TELL YOU SOMETHING FIFTY TIMES YOU SHOULD NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT LEAST ONCE. > your theory. Much of what is commonly called "Human Knowledge" isn't > actually knowledge, but subjective opinions that have been agreed by the ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========