Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context. Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:39:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 220 Message-ID: References: <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org> <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org> <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org> <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org> <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org> <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org> <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org> <7e65b56232049fe2b950c1502d33545501e1f185@i2pn2.org> <829a8bc81663a35c224655ab2d5394505bf03a3e@i2pn2.org> <961cbaf9b14382a0bb6840f83df472ad7389b63e@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 04:39:47 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f916a71d8198685241611f1fae38067"; logging-data="3093958"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1f6wRX8B8WHkOXQw/xTFP" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:YTqOjHFTCuBPlC2XCXhMS94R4zI= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250321-4, 3/21/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <961cbaf9b14382a0bb6840f83df472ad7389b63e@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 12006 On 3/21/2025 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/21/25 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/21/2025 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/21/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/21/2025 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/20/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/20/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========