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 Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context. Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:45:41 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 133 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: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:45:42 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d0856e096378cf2978d5f019a300a2e7"; logging-data="1739119"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VAopT5mWvU0Z0xPr9fqWY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:z0yGJhDfPvwFtcdb1XuWjaBkEEk= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250321-2, 3/21/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7901 On 3/21/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-03-20 22:14:01 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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. > > The set of the known truth preserving operations is a "small" subset of > the set of the entire body of human general knowledge. Most of what is > known is of different nature. > YES -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer