XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: 046-301-5902@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely   
   >>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is   
   >>> a semantic tautology.   
   >>   
   >> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all   
   >> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions,   
   >> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent.   
   >   
   > I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology.   
   > I am defining a new thing under the Sun.   
      
   The existing tautology is already semantic. You have to know the   
   semantics (the truth tables of the logical operators used in the   
   formula, and the workings of quantifiers and whatnot) to be able to   
   conclude whether a formula is a tautology.   
      
   Pick another word. Since only dimwitted crackpots like yourself will   
   want to discuss anything using that word, keep the syllable count low   
   and make sure there aren't too many off-centre vowels.   
      
   > *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean*   
      
   Reject; call it something else.   
      
   > Any expression of language that is proven true entirely   
   > on the basis of its meaning expressed in language.   
      
   You are gonna need to supply an example.   
      
   >> You would need to have tremendous stature in logic to   
   >> be able to dictate a redefinition of a deeply entrenched,   
   >> standard term.   
   >   
   > Or I could simply prove that I am correct on the   
      
   Your intellectual track record shows that you couldn't prove correct   
   your way out of a wet paper bag.   
      
   > basis of the meaning of my words, thus anyone   
   > disagreeing is merely proving that they are too   
   > full of themselves.   
      
   You are already wrong. The definition of word is neither correct   
   nor incorrect. It's just accepted or not. A bad definition ahs   
   some issue like circularty or inconsistency, but if there is no   
   such problem, then the rest is just a matter of convention.   
      
   I'm informing you that there is a convention already which assigns   
   a meaning to "tautology". It is a semantic concept and therefore   
   "semantic tautology" isn't readily distinguishable.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)