XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 3/21/25 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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)