XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 3/21/25 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)