XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/13/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:   
   > On 8/13/2025 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > That's exactly how it goes.  You just don't understand it, just like you   
   > don't understand the halting problem proof.   
   >   
      
   If you totally ignore all the theory / metatheory stuff   
   it may superficially seem that way.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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   
   >   
   > So you start with the assumption that a halt decider exists, i.e. you   
   > have an H that meets these requirements:   
   >   
   >   
   > Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X   
   > described as  with input Y:   
   >   
   > A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the   
   > following mapping:   
   >   
   > (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly   
   > (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly   
   >   
   >   
   >> then "IF" this *INPUT* actually exists   
   >   
      
   Yet it quit talking about the behavior of the input.   
   That sneaky bait-and-switch has fooled everyone   
   for 89 years.   
      
   --   
   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)