XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/6/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
>
No one ever understands that my mathematical formal
system includes the entire body of human general
knowledge encoded in formalized English.
>>> 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.
>
No matter what anyone says it is a fact that that is my intention.
>> 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.
>
A semantic tautology is a self-evident truth expressed
in language.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
