XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/13/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:   
   > On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>> On 8/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> How many tests that are black in color are entirely   
   >>>> white in color and the answer must be a positive   
   >>>> integer and must come with proof that it is correct.   
   >>>   
   >>> Error: Assumes that something can be entirely black and entirely white   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What time is it (yes or no) ?   
   >>>   
   >>> Error: Assumes that the answer can be yes or no   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ?   
   >>>> The above is the basis for the Tarski undefinability theorem.   
   >>>   
   >>> Error: Assume that sentence can have a truth value   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yes and by saying that you have proven that you   
   >> understand the Liar Paradox much better than every   
   >> expert on the philosophy of logic in the world.   
   >> The very best expert in the sub field of truthmaker   
   >> maximalism said that the Liar Paradox might not   
   >> have a truth value.   
   >   
   >   
   > They all understand that.   
   >   
   > What you don't understand is that if you assume that a truth predicate   
   > exists, then by performing a set series of truth preserving operations   
   > we reach the conclusion that the liar paradox does have a truth value.   
   >   
      
   I have the actual Tarski proof and it does not go   
   that way at all.   
      
   https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf   
      
   > Therefore no truth predicate exists.   
   >   
   > Once again, you're proving you don't understand proof by contradiction.   
   >   
      
   When the halting problem shows that there is an   
   input that does the opposite of whatever the halt   
   decider decides then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists   
   it would prove by contradiction that no universal   
   halt decider exists.   
      
   When no such *INPUT* actually exists then the   
   whole proof totally falls completely apart.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)