XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/21/2025 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)