XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 3/21/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 3/21/2025 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)