Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333908 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-10 21:36 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-14 10:26 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:36 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 22:35 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:49 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 23:27 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 10:42 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 09:22 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 18:33 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 12:19 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 13:52 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 13:06 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 14:22 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 13:36 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 16:33 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 16:54 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 18:40 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 17:56 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 19:02 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 18:22 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 18:53 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 20:06 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 19:55 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 19:07 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 20:35 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 22:41 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 07:18 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 10:04 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:48 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:52 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 21:03 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 22:31 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 21:49 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 23:16 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 22:36 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 07:31 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 08:53 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 21:59 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 23:44 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 23:11 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 07:16 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 08:48 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:26 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 19:36 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:52 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-16 05:38 +0200
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 22:58 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 20:20 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 21:39 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 20:57 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 22:07 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 21:17 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 22:33 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 21:42 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 23:17 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 22:33 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 07:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 08:37 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 21:38 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 23:44 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 07:32 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 08:59 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 21:44 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:54 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 22:20 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 22:51 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 07:41 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 09:32 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 20:22 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:33 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 21:19 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 22:40 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 22:35 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 08:43 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:15 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 10:32 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:48 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:56 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:26 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 13:38 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:35 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:54 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:46 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:57 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:00 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 18:22 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 17:47 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 19:04 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:47 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 07:55 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:41 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-19 17:03 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:15 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 10:55 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 12:48 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-21 11:05 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 09:36 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-22 19:58 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 14:52 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 19:01 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 18:55 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 21:03 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 20:36 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 22:31 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 22:45 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 07:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:46 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:32 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-24 11:18 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 14:16 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-25 11:01 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 13:13 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-26 11:38 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 08:52 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-27 11:00 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:15 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-27 17:19 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:34 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-28 09:59 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 09:59 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:39 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 22:54 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 07:31 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 09:00 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-05-29 09:01 +0200
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:11 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-29 11:25 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:31 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-30 09:52 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:43 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 10:17 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:47 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-01 10:32 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:41 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 10:29 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 08:01 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 10:19 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:56 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method MTT Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:14 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-23 11:09 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 20:07 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:27 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-24 12:15 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-23 11:05 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:23 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-24 12:25 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-23 10:54 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-22 10:57 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 10:55 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:12 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:59 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 20:54 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 22:24 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 21:56 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 23:37 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:52 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:50 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 10:00 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 18:08 +0200
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 13:29 +0200
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 00:28 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 07:41 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-13 12:23 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 09:48 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:08 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:42 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:39 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:27 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 11:44 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:05 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 18:49 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:23 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:21 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:24 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 09:34 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:16 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:18 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:43 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:31 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:26 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 11:59 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:00 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 18:56 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:28 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:46 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:59 -0500
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 13:09 +0300
Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:26 -0500
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 12:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v1v9n7$32bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334024 |
On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict with the
>>>>>> classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece doesn't
>>>>>> affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of yours, you think
>>>>>> you can change a system, and not show that the system can still exist
>>>>>> as it was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite
>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be
>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>
>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need such
>>>> an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, that shows
>>>> that there will exists some statements are true, but not provable.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>
>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>
>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that line
>>>> 14 means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>
>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>> be proven must be untrue.
>>
>
> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 09:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1vt8t$7eqc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334060 |
On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that
>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations
>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are
>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and
>>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict
>>>>>>> with the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece
>>>>>>> doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of
>>>>>>> yours, you think you can change a system, and not show that the
>>>>>>> system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite
>>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite
>>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be
>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need
>>>>> such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence,
>>>>> that shows that there will exists some statements are true, but not
>>>>> provable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply
>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that
>>>>> line 14 means.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>
>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>
>>
>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
>> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>
> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>
An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive p?
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
Whether p is "a cat" or p is defined as ~True(L, p) the above
system detects and rejects p when p is neither True nor False.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v215u1$12b7d$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334067 |
On 5/14/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that
>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations
>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms
>>>>>>>>>> are called
>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and
>>>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of.
>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict
>>>>>>>> with the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece
>>>>>>>> doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of
>>>>>>>> yours, you think you can change a system, and not show that the
>>>>>>>> system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving
>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an
>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are
>>>>>>>> finite sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths
>>>>>>>> must be provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need
>>>>>> such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence,
>>>>>> that shows that there will exists some statements are true, but
>>>>>> not provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply
>>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that
>>>>>> line 14 means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>
>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
>>> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>
>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>
>
> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
So, are you saying by stipulating you can "make" a false statement true,
or are you saying that you LIED when you "stipulated" facts that were
not true?
>
> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
Well, if you have shown that True(L, p) returns false, then you can, of
if p is shown to be untrue, then it must be true.
>
> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
Well, if you have shown that True(L, p) returns true, then you can.
>
> Whether p is "a cat" or p is defined as ~True(L, p) the above
> system detects and rejects p when p is neither True nor False.
And if it "rejects" the input, then we can show that it is wrong, and if
it accepts the input, it is also wrong, thus it can not answer for the
input and fails to be a predicate.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 11:39 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v21sb5$p5sc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334067 |
On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict with the
>>>>>>>> classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece doesn't
>>>>>>>> affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of yours, you think
>>>>>>>> you can change a system, and not show that the system can still exist
>>>>>>>> as it was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite
>>>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite
>>>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be
>>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need such
>>>>>> an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, that shows
>>>>>> that there will exists some statements are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that line
>>>>>> 14 means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>
>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
>>> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>
>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>
>
> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 09:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v22gos$tjgs$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334103 |
On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that
>>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations
>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms
>>>>>>>>>>> are called
>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and
>>>>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of.
>>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to
>>>>>>>>> be "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict
>>>>>>>>> with the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is
>>>>>>>>> not actually true, then you need to show how removing that
>>>>>>>>> piece doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak point
>>>>>>>>> of yours, you think you can change a system, and not show that
>>>>>>>>> the system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an
>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs
>>>>>>>>> are finite sequences, but it seems you still assert that all
>>>>>>>>> truths must be provable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need
>>>>>>> such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence,
>>>>>>> that shows that there will exists some statements are true, but
>>>>>>> not provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply
>>>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what
>>>>>>> that line 14 means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>> expressions that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X
>>>> when X is an
>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>
>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>
>>
>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>
> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>
My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
formal proof. I provide the simpler example below so that the gist
of my idea is easy to see.
True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving
operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is
defined as True(L,~x).
x = "a fish"
True(English, x) == false
False(English, x) == false
x is a type mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic thus
cannot be an expression stipulated to be true or derived by applying
truth preserving operations to expressions stipulated to be true.
True(English, "This sentence is not true") == false
False(English, "This sentence is not true") == false
The same thing goes for formalized natural language.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v23jql$15707$25@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334112 |
On 5/15/24 10:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms
>>>>>>>>>>>> are called
>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and
>>>>>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken
>>>>>>>>>>> of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to
>>>>>>>>>> be "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict
>>>>>>>>>> with the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is
>>>>>>>>>> not actually true, then you need to show how removing that
>>>>>>>>>> piece doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak point
>>>>>>>>>> of yours, you think you can change a system, and not show that
>>>>>>>>>> the system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs
>>>>>>>>>> are finite sequences, but it seems you still assert that all
>>>>>>>>>> truths must be provable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need
>>>>>>>> such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence,
>>>>>>>> that shows that there will exists some statements are true, but
>>>>>>>> not provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply
>>>>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what
>>>>>>>> that line 14 means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>> expressions that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or
>>>>> ~X when X is an
>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>
>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>
>
> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
> formal proof. I provide the simpler example below so that the gist
> of my idea is easy to see.
Except you seem to be too stupid to understand why that doesn't work.
Y
>
> True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving
> operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
> stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is
> defined as True(L,~x).
So, what does True(L, x) return when x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
Your failure to answer this and go to the strawman below just proves you
are too stupid to understand the problem.
>
> x = "a fish"
> True(English, x) == false
> False(English, x) == false
>
> x is a type mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic thus
> cannot be an expression stipulated to be true or derived by applying
> truth preserving operations to expressions stipulated to be true.
Except it isn't for the True predicate, as it is defined to accept
non-truth0-bearers as its input.
So, you are just proving yourself to be a LIAR.
>
> True(English, "This sentence is not true") == false
> False(English, "This sentence is not true") == false
> The same thing goes for formalized natural language.
>
And what does "False" have to do with anything, do you somehow thing
that ~True(L, x) is the same thing as False(L, x).
If so, you are just proving your utter ignorance of what you are talking
about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 11:44 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v24h24$1fh9e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334112 |
On 2024-05-15 14:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>> classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of yours, you think
>>>>>>>>>> you can change a system, and not show that the system can still exist
>>>>>>>>>> as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite
>>>>>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be
>>>>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need such
>>>>>>>> an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, that shows
>>>>>>>> that there will exists some statements are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that line
>>>>>>>> 14 means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
>>>>> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>
>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>
>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>
>
> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
> formal proof.
How is an accureate model of all general knowledge of the actual world
relevant to that?
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v257c8$1kais$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334179 |
On 5/16/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-15 14:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken
>>>>>>>>>>>> of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to
>>>>>>>>>>> be "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict
>>>>>>>>>>> with the classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is
>>>>>>>>>>> not actually true, then you need to show how removing that
>>>>>>>>>>> piece doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a weak
>>>>>>>>>>> point of yours, you think you can change a system, and not
>>>>>>>>>>> show that the system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
>>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs
>>>>>>>>>>> are finite sequences, but it seems you still assert that all
>>>>>>>>>>> truths must be provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some
>>>>>>>>> need such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite
>>>>>>>>> sequence, that shows that there will exists some statements are
>>>>>>>>> true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply
>>>>>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what
>>>>>>>>> that line 14 means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>> expressions that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or
>>>>>> ~X when X is an
>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>>
>>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>>
>>
>> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
>> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
>> formal proof.
>
> How is an accureate model of all general knowledge of the actual world
> relevant to that?
>
We assume that it has every single detail of human general knowledge
encoded as formalized natural language expressions having stipulated
relations to other formalized natural language expressions. In other
words this entire body of knowledge is specified relations between
finite strings.
It can also be provided with context specific information on a
case-by-case basis.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 18:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v27uap$28pa9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334195 |
On 2024-05-16 15:05:44 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/16/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-15 14:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of yours, you think
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can change a system, and not show that the system can still exist
>>>>>>>>>>>> as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be
>>>>>>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need such
>>>>>>>>>> an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, that shows
>>>>>>>>>> that there will exists some statements are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that line
>>>>>>>>>> 14 means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
>>>>>>> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>>>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
>>> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
>>> formal proof.
>>
>> How is an accureate model of all general knowledge of the actual world
>> relevant to that?
>>
>
> We assume that it has every single detail of human general knowledge
> encoded as formalized natural language expressions having stipulated
> relations to other formalized natural language expressions. In other
> words this entire body of knowledge is specified relations between
> finite strings.
>
> It can also be provided with context specific information on a
> case-by-case basis.
If I understood your words (that are not as clear as they could) you
mean that you cannot reject epsitemological antinomies unless you have
every single detail of human general knowledge encoded as formalized
natural language expressions.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v283pl$29rd7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334240 |
On 5/17/2024 10:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-16 15:05:44 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/16/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-15 14:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be "usually spoken of" and what is your unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the classical parts, but follows within its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not actually true, then you need to show how removing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that piece doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak point of yours, you think you can change a system, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not show that the system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs are finite sequences, but it seems you still assert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all truths must be provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only
>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some
>>>>>>>>>>> need such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence, that shows that there will exists some statements
>>>>>>>>>>> are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what
>>>>>>>>>>> that line 14 means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological
>>>>>>>>> antinomy could
>>>>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>>>> expressions that have been stipulated to be true that derive X
>>>>>>>> or ~X when X is an
>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual
>>>>>> world.
>>>>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>>>>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
>>>> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
>>>> formal proof.
>>>
>>> How is an accureate model of all general knowledge of the actual world
>>> relevant to that?
>>>
>>
>> We assume that it has every single detail of human general knowledge
>> encoded as formalized natural language expressions having stipulated
>> relations to other formalized natural language expressions. In other
>> words this entire body of knowledge is specified relations between
>> finite strings.
>>
>> It can also be provided with context specific information on a
>> case-by-case basis.
>
> If I understood your words (that are not as clear as they could) you
> mean that you cannot reject epsitemological antinomies unless you have
> every single detail of human general knowledge encoded as formalized
> natural language expressions.
>
I am specifying the algorithm for a correct True(L,x) and False(L,x)
predicates that operate on every element of the entire body of
finite string expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
and this includes all of expressions of math, logic and computations
specified as finite strings.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v28v0u$1a3tk$18@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334251 |
On 5/17/24 1:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 10:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-16 15:05:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-15 14:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be "usually spoken of" and what is your unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the classical parts, but follows within its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not actually true, then you need to show how removing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that piece doesn't affect the system. This seems to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weak point of yours, you think you can change a system,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not show that the system can still exist as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of operations, while you admit that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs are finite sequences, but it seems you still assert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all truths must be provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some
>>>>>>>>>>>> need such an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence, that shows that there will exists some statements
>>>>>>>>>>>> are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> what that line 14 means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological
>>>>>>>>>> antinomy could
>>>>>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from
>>>>>>>>> expressions that have been stipulated to be true that derive X
>>>>>>>>> or ~X when X is an
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a
>>>>>>>>> truth-bearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>>>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual
>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>>>>>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
>>>>> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
>>>>> formal proof.
>>>>
>>>> How is an accureate model of all general knowledge of the actual world
>>>> relevant to that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We assume that it has every single detail of human general knowledge
>>> encoded as formalized natural language expressions having stipulated
>>> relations to other formalized natural language expressions. In other
>>> words this entire body of knowledge is specified relations between
>>> finite strings.
>>>
>>> It can also be provided with context specific information on a
>>> case-by-case basis.
>>
>> If I understood your words (that are not as clear as they could) you
>> mean that you cannot reject epsitemological antinomies unless you have
>> every single detail of human general knowledge encoded as formalized
>> natural language expressions.
>>
>
> I am specifying the algorithm for a correct True(L,x) and False(L,x)
> predicates that operate on every element of the entire body of
> finite string expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
> and this includes all of expressions of math, logic and computations
> specified as finite strings.
>
And that algorithm thus allows a proof in your system that True(L, true)
can be false, and thus your system is inconsistant.
After all, if True(L, p) is false, then p is ~false which is true, and
thus you just claimed that True(L, true) is false.
So, your system is just broken, but you don't understand the rules of
logic to see that, because you are too stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 12:21 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v29rup$2ng3p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334251 |
On 2024-05-17 17:23:01 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/17/2024 10:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-16 15:05:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-15 14:27:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-14 14:42:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 18:36:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you need to be VERY clear about what you claim to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "usually spoken of" and what is your unique contribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You then need to show how your contribution isn't in conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical parts, but follows within its definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say that something in the classical theory is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually true, then you need to show how removing that piece doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the system. This seems to be a weak point of yours, you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can change a system, and not show that the system can still exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms. It is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of inference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps may sometimes be required. It is also not exactly the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because some proofs are not restricted to truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what effect does that difference have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem here to accept that some truths are based on an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of operations, while you admit that proofs are finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences, but it seems you still assert that all truths must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not use the term "provable" or "proofs" these only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequences. {derived from applying truth preserving operations}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can involve infinite sequences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if true can come out of an infinite sequences, and some need such
>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite sequence, but proof requires a finite sequence, that shows
>>>>>>>>>>>> that there will exists some statements are true, but not provable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the way that {true on the basis of meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually works, then all epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And Godel would agree to that. You just don't understand what that line
>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It can be proven in a finite sequence of steps that
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomies are simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And also that every claim from which an epistemological antinomy could
>>>>>>>>>> be proven must be untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions
>>>>>>>>> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an
>>>>>>>>> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then
>>>>>>>> it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>>>>>> Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean that everything uncertain is excluded from "general
>>>>>> knowledge of the actual world"? If so, then very little is left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My purpose is to show a simple easy way to reject epistemological
>>>>> antinomies such as the Liar Paradox from forming the basis for any
>>>>> formal proof.
>>>>
>>>> How is an accureate model of all general knowledge of the actual world
>>>> relevant to that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We assume that it has every single detail of human general knowledge
>>> encoded as formalized natural language expressions having stipulated
>>> relations to other formalized natural language expressions. In other
>>> words this entire body of knowledge is specified relations between
>>> finite strings.
>>>
>>> It can also be provided with context specific information on a
>>> case-by-case basis.
>>
>> If I understood your words (that are not as clear as they could) you
>> mean that you cannot reject epsitemological antinomies unless you have
>> every single detail of human general knowledge encoded as formalized
>> natural language expressions.
>>
>
> I am specifying the algorithm for a correct True(L,x) and False(L,x)
> predicates that operate on every element of the entire body of
> finite string expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning}
> and this includes all of expressions of math, logic and computations
> specified as finite strings.
A specification without an implementation does not help much, especially
if there is no proof that the specification can be implemented.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 22:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v216cu$12b7d$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334060 |
On 5/14/24 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-13 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said: >> There are no sequence of truth preserving operations from expressions >> that have been stipulated to be true that derive X or ~X when X is an >> epistemological antinomy, thus X is rejected as not a truth-bearer. > > That depends on stipulations. If someone stipulates enough then > it is possible to derive an epistemological antimomy. > Like stipulating (or just assuming) that a True predicate exists that works for all statements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-13 09:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v1t8d5$3gu9t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333976 |
On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal
>>>>>>>>> Systems are the axioms of the system and the most primitively
>>>>>>>>> provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>
>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>
>>
>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>
> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
> cannot contribute.
>
>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>> to these finite string.
>
> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>
The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>
> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>
>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>
> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>
For real world things that are never required. The various
conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
> 1, 1, 1, ..., 2, 2, 2
>
> where every element (except the first one) is equal to preceding element
> so by transitivity every element should be equal to the first one.
>
>> It is also not exactly the same because some proofs are not restricted
>> to truth preserving operations.
>
> A sequence of inferences that can derive a false conclusion from true
> premises should not be called a "proof".
>
When X or ~X can be derived by applying a sequence of truth preserving
operations to a set of expressions that have been stipulated to have the
semantic value of Boolean True then X is True or False. Otherwise X is
not a truth bearer.
This screens out epistemological antinomies from forming the basis
for any derivation of True(L, x). By doing this Tarski Undefinability
is defeated.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 12:16 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v1va5a$355t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334021 |
On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>
>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>
>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>> cannot contribute.
>>
>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>> to these finite string.
>>
>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>
>
> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>
> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>
>
>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>
>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>
>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>
>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>
>
> For real world things that are never required. The various
> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
an infinite sequence of inference steps.
Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
basis of meaning".
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 10:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v1vvbv$825a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334061 |
On 5/14/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis
>>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most
>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>
>>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>>> cannot contribute.
>>>
>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>> to these finite string.
>>>
>>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>>
>>
>> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
>> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
>> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>
>> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
>> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>>
>>
>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>
>>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>>
>>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>>
>>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>>
>>
>> For real world things that are never required. The various
>> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>
> That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
> solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
> remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
> thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
> an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>
> Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
> sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
> basis of meaning".
>
My whole purpose with this whole thread is to show exactly how
epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected thus
not form the basis for any undecidability proofs or Tarski's
undefinability theorem.
The technical field of the art is called {Truthmaker Maximalism}.
This typically falls under metaphysics because it is usually applied
to expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning} as well
empirical truths. I am only examining the epistemological aspects.
Unlike all of the other authors in the field I provide the architectural
details of the foundation of a system with a True(L, x) and False(L, x)
predicate for all expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning}.
This requires an accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the
actual world. Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually
be true.
Can a sequence of truth preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive p?
Can a sequence of truth preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
Whether p is "a cat" or p is defined as ~True(L, p) the above
system detects and rejects p when p is neither True nor False,
thus detecting that p is not a truth-bearer, thus must be rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v215ud$12b7d$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334069 |
On 5/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most
>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding.
>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>
>>>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>>>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>>>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>>>> cannot contribute.
>>>>
>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>
>>>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>>>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>>>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>>>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
>>> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
>>> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>
>>> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
>>> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>>
>>>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>>>
>>>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>>>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>>>
>>>
>>> For real world things that are never required. The various
>>> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>
>> That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
>> solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
>> remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
>> thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
>> an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>
>> Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
>> sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
>> basis of meaning".
>>
>
> My whole purpose with this whole thread is to show exactly how
> epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected thus
> not form the basis for any undecidability proofs or Tarski's
> undefinability theorem.
>
But the problem is that the things you are talking about aren't talking
about epistemological antinomies that can be just rejected.
Godel's undecidability proof, while it starts from a statement based on
the FORM of an epistemological antinomy, changes the semantics of the
statement so that it isn't one, something you don't seem to understand.
Tarski's proof is a bit closer, but what it shows is that *IF* you
assume that a "Truth Predicate" exists, then there exists statements,
like p defined as ~True(L, x) that cause the system to have to treat
such statments, which are epistemological antinomies as truth bearers.
> The technical field of the art is called {Truthmaker Maximalism}.
> This typically falls under metaphysics because it is usually applied
> to expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning} as well
> empirical truths. I am only examining the epistemological aspects.
Yes, that can be a question in general philosophy but isn't a question
in formal logic, as it has a simple definition of truth
>
> Unlike all of the other authors in the field I provide the architectural
> details of the foundation of a system with a True(L, x) and False(L, x)
> predicate for all expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning}.
So, what does True(L, x) return for p defined as ~True(L, p)
>
> This requires an accurate model of all of the general knowledge of the
> actual world. Expressions that are stipulated to be true must actually
> be true.
Why? We are supposed to be in a formal system, where we have an
enumerated list of the primative truth makers.
They form the ONLY definition of truth in the formal system.
You seem to not understand that point.
>
> Can a sequence of truth preserving operations applied to expressions
> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
If it is deteremined that True(L, p) is false, then yes.
>
> Can a sequence of truth preserving operations applied to expressions
> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
If it is determined that True(L, p) is true, then yes.
So, whichever answer you decide to stipulate that this predicate
returns, and it MUST return an answer, or it isn't a predicate, then we
can PROVE by you definitions, that it is wrong.
>
> Whether p is "a cat" or p is defined as ~True(L, p) the above
> system detects and rejects p when p is neither True nor False,
> thus detecting that p is not a truth-bearer, thus must be rejected.
And thus MAKES p true, so it lies.
After all, if p is neither true or false, then True(L, p) will be false,
and thus p defined as ~True(L, p) will be True, so we just showed that a
statement "proven" to be a non-truth-bearer is actually true, and thus
the system is inconsistant.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 11:43 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v21sin$p84q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334069 |
On 2024-05-14 15:18:22 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/14/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems
>>>>>>>>>>>> are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding. Only
>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations between
>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are called
>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and false in
>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no interpretation
>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>
>>>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>>>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>>>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>>>> cannot contribute.
>>>>
>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>
>>>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>>>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>>>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>>>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
>>> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
>>> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>
>>> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
>>> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>>
>>>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>>>
>>>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>>>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>>>
>>>
>>> For real world things that are never required. The various
>>> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>
>> That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
>> solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
>> remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
>> thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
>> an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>
>> Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
>> sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
>> basis of meaning".
>>
>
> My whole purpose with this whole thread is to show exactly how
> epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected thus
> not form the basis for any undecidability proofs or Tarski's
> undefinability theorem.
There are provable sentences of the form A -> B where A is some
hypthesis and B is an epistemological antimńomy. How are these
true statments handled when B is rejected?
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 09:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v22h0j$tjgs$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334104 |
On 5/15/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-14 15:18:22 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/14/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep understanding.
>>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about uninterpreted
>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are
>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and
>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>
>>>>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>>>>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>>>>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>>>>> cannot contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>>>>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>>>>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>>>>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
>>>> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
>>>> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>
>>>> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
>>>> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>>>>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For real world things that are never required. The various
>>>> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>>
>>> That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
>>> solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
>>> remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
>>> thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
>>> an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>>
>>> Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
>>> sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
>>> basis of meaning".
>>>
>>
>> My whole purpose with this whole thread is to show exactly how
>> epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected thus
>> not form the basis for any undecidability proofs or Tarski's
>> undefinability theorem.
>
> There are provable sentences of the form A -> B where A is some
> hypthesis and B is an epistemological antimńomy. How are these
> true statments handled when B is rejected?
>
*Already addressed in great depth in my prior reply*
True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving
operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is
defined as True(L,~x).
Every expression such that True(L,x)==false and False(L,x)==false
is rejected as a type mismatch error.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 20:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Tarski |
| Message-ID | <v23jqv$15707$27@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334113 |
On 5/15/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2024 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-14 15:18:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-13 14:34:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 17:19:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 10:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-12 14:22:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-11 04:27:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of expressions that are {true on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do know that what you are describing when applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primitively provable theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual world, thus Quine was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to these axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I understand this much more deeply than you do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In and about formal logic there is no valid deep
>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Only
>>>>>>>>>> a shallow understanding can be valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It turns out that ALL {true on the basis of meaning} that includes
>>>>>>>>> ALL of logic and math has its entire foundation in relations
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> finite strings. Some are stipulated to be true (axioms) and some
>>>>>>>>> are derived by applying truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Usually the word "true" is not used when talking about
>>>>>>>> uninterpreted
>>>>>>>> formal systems. Axioms and what can be inferred from axioms are
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>> "theorems". Theorems can be true in some interpretations and
>>>>>>>> false in
>>>>>>>> another. If the system is incosistent then there is no
>>>>>>>> interpretation
>>>>>>>> where all axioms are true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not talking about how these things are usually spoken of. I am
>>>>>>> talking about my unique contribution to the actual philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What matters is that you are not talking about those things as they
>>>>>> are usually spoken of. The consequence is that nobody is going to
>>>>>> understand you, and the consequence of that probably is that you
>>>>>> cannot contribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is entirely comprised of relations between finite strings:
>>>>>>> some of which are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean
>>>>>>> true, and others derived from applying truth preserving operations
>>>>>>> to these finite string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of that doesn't require any stipulations about semantics but
>>>>>> can be done with finite strings and their relations. Semantics is
>>>>>> only needed to choose interesting problems and, if a problem can
>>>>>> be solved, to interprete the solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way that a system of formalized natural language can
>>>>> possibly know that {dogs} <are> {animals} is that it must be told.
>>>>> See also Davidson's truth conditional semantics.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>
>>>>> The only way that "dogs are animals" acquires semantic
>>>>> meaning is the stipulated relation: {dogs} <are> {animals}.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is approximately equivalent to proofs from axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It shouod be exactly equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not exactly the same thing because an infinite sequence of
>>>>>>> inference steps may sometimes be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Infinite sequences create more problem than they solve. For example,
>>>>>> you can prove that 1 = 2 with the infinite sequence
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For real world things that are never required. The various
>>>>> conjectures seem to require an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>>>
>>>> That is not known. There are real world problems that are not yet
>>>> solved without an infinite seqeunce of inference steps and there
>>>> remains the possibility that some of them, or one that is not yet
>>>> thought to be a problem but will be, that cannot be solved without
>>>> an infinite sequence of inference steps.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, whether real world problems are solvable without an infinite
>>>> sequence of inference steps is irrelevanto to the topic "True on the
>>>> basis of meaning".
>>>>
>>>
>>> My whole purpose with this whole thread is to show exactly how
>>> epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected thus
>>> not form the basis for any undecidability proofs or Tarski's
>>> undefinability theorem.
>>
>> There are provable sentences of the form A -> B where A is some
>> hypthesis and B is an epistemological antimńomy. How are these
>> true statments handled when B is rejected?
>>
>
> *Already addressed in great depth in my prior reply*
WHERE?
You claim a lot, but I have yet to see ANYTHING from you in the form of
a "Formal Proof" in a formal system.
>
> True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving
> operations from finite string expressions of language that have been
> stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is
> defined as True(L,~x).
So, what is True(L, x) when x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
Your diverssion are just proving you don't know that answer, or even
understand the problem
>
> Every expression such that True(L,x)==false and False(L,x)==false
> is rejected as a type mismatch error.
>
But "Reject" isn't an option.
If True(L, x) for x defined as ~True(L, x) is made false, then that
makes x to be ~false, or true, and thus your logic system says that
True(L, true) is false, and thus your system is in contradiction.
Your failure to address this just prove you are too stupid to even
understand the problem you definition are creating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web