XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.30:   
   > On 12/5/2025 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26:   
   >>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19:   
   >>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean*   
   >>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely   
   >>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for   
   >>>>> "definition".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A definition gives a new word for something.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some effort   
   >>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing.   
   >>>   
   >>> A semantic tautology might be considered the   
   >>> complete definition of a a word by providing   
   >>> the complete definition of every word in this   
   >>> definition recursively all the way down until   
   >>> every one of these words is completely defined.   
   >>   
   >> A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't.   
      
   > [semantic tautology] is my term thus giving me absolute   
   > authority over its meaning.   
      
   No, you have not. The word "tautology" already has a meaning. Therefore   
   you are restricted to subtypes of taotology.   
      
   > I stipulate that it derives   
   > all of its meaning from the base meaning of its constituents   
   > composed together.   
      
   That is teh exac meaning when I used the expression above and below.   
      
   >> It   
   >> can be and usually is expressed with words that already have meanings.   
   >> The definition of "semantic logical tautology" presented above doesn't   
   >> require that it define any of its word.   
      
   > "I will be going to the grocery store in a few minutes"   
      
   Aristotle has a long discussion on whther sentences about future   
   events, like your example above, have a truth value. He concluded   
   that they don't but modern ligicians often think they do. Either   
   way, the above is not any kind of tautology.   
      
   > Is not typically construed as any king of logic sentence   
   > so I am expressly enlarging the scope of the  the term   
   > "tautology" and expressly removing the notion of any   
   > syntactic basis by stipulating a "semantic" basis.   
      
   If you want to extend the scope you must define what "tautology"   
   or at least "semantic tautology" means in the extended scope. But   
   the generalized meaning must be equivalent to the conventional   
   meaning when applied to sentences of ordinary logic.   
      
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)   
      
   That page says that tautology is a sentence that is true independently   
   of its semantics.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)