XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   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?   
   >>   
   >> And thus you just admitted that your system doesn't even QUALIFY to be   
   >> the system that Tarski is talking about.   
   >>   
   >> You don't seem to understand that fact, because apparently you can't   
   >> actually understand any logic system more coplicated than what Prolog   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)