XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/13/2025 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   In other words, you don't understand the proof.   
      
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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   
   >>   
   >> And it does via a series of truth preserving operations starting from the   
   above assumption   
   >   
      
   No direct reply to this, I see.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)