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 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26fe4$18ad7$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334187 |
On 5/16/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/16/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/15/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and >>>>>>>>>> ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to >>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>> nor false in English. >>>>> >>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>> >>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>> >>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. >>> >>> *You got overwhelmed with that so we have to break it down to* >>> *smaller steps to see exactly where our mutual agreement diverged* >> >> No, >> >>> >>> Do you understand and agree with this? >>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>> *Is saying the same thing that you already agreed to* >>> >> >> Just more of your off topic red herring. >> >> You don't need to repeat what has been agreed to, that is just a >> delaying tactic because you are stumped. > > The Socratic method begins with mutual agreement and then makes > incremental steps that maintain this mutual agreement. I am taking > what you said is that you do agree with the above. And I have answered that question and gave you back one that you faild to answer, so you have failed the test of the Socratic method. > > The English Liar Paradox that you agree with it isomorphic to the > formalized Liar Paradox: "p defined as ~True(L, p)" No, there is an essential difference that you just don't understand, the True predicate MUST be a Truth Bearer, BY DEFINITIOIN, while "just a statement" has the option to be a non-truth-bearer. > > *You agreed that it is neither True nor False too* I agreed the Liar is neither True nor False, I didn't agree that the statement based on the True predicat wasn't, as that is NOT a possiblity, except by the statement not existing because the Truth Predicate doesn't exist. > > When you are disagreeing with yourself and I ask what's up with that? > this is not a delaying tactic, it is an preventing jumping to false > conclusions tactic. Nope, I didn't disagree with myself, you are just showing yourself to stupid to understand what I am saying. > > On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> > >>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ... > >> > >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied > >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p? > > No, so True(L, p) is false > >> > >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied > >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? > > > > No, so False(L, p) is false, > > > > When "p defined as ~True(L, p)" then you agreed > "True(L, p) is false" and "False(L, p) is false" > proving that p is not a truth bearer. > > BY YOUR DEFINIITION of truth, P defined as ~True(:, p) must be false, since it doesn't connect from truth bearers with truth perservving functions. BUT once that is established, then since True(L, p) is false, the p, which is ~True(L, p) which is the same as ~false, which is true, so your system has just blown itself up with a contradiction. THAT is the problem, once we show that True(L, p) is false, then we can show that it must also be true, as we DO have a path, by the rule that the non-existance of a path makeing it false. So, all you have done is shown that your defintion of truth, plus the instance that the Truth Predicate exists, makes you logoic system all blown up to contradictory smitherines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 21:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26fuq$1vvq8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334207 |
On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/16/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/16/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/15/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and >>>>>>>>>>> ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to >>>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, >>>>>>> p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>>> nor false in English. >>>>>> >>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>>> >>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>>> >>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. >>>> >>>> *You got overwhelmed with that so we have to break it down to* >>>> *smaller steps to see exactly where our mutual agreement diverged* >>> >>> No, >>> >>>> >>>> Do you understand and agree with this? >>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>> *Is saying the same thing that you already agreed to* >>>> >>> >>> Just more of your off topic red herring. >>> >>> You don't need to repeat what has been agreed to, that is just a >>> delaying tactic because you are stumped. >> >> The Socratic method begins with mutual agreement and then makes >> incremental steps that maintain this mutual agreement. I am taking >> what you said is that you do agree with the above. > > And I have answered that question and gave you back one that you faild > to answer, so you have failed the test of the Socratic method. > >> >> The English Liar Paradox that you agree with it isomorphic to the >> formalized Liar Paradox: "p defined as ~True(L, p)" > > No, there is an essential difference that you just don't understand, the > True predicate MUST be a Truth Bearer, BY DEFINITIOIN, while "just a > statement" has the option to be a non-truth-bearer. > >> >> *You agreed that it is neither True nor False too* > > I agreed the Liar is neither True nor False, You said that this---> p defined as ~True(L, p) ... is neither true or false as quoted below: On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ... >> >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p? > > No, so True(L, p) is false >> >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? > > No, so False(L, p) is false, > *I can keep quoting you on this 10,000 times if needed* *I can keep quoting you on this 10,000 times if needed* *I can keep quoting you on this 10,000 times if needed* -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 23:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v242un$1cdll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334171 |
On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ a >>>>>>> truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>> >>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>> >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>> >>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be >>> false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>> >>>>> >>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>> >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>> >>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>> >>>>> >>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>> >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>> >>>> >>> >>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means that >>> True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>> >> >> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >> nor false in English. >> >> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >> >> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >> >> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >> the exact same semantics as the English one. >> > > No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) with > p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the resulting > comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means your system is > broken. > True(L, true) is false False(L, true) is false This is the Truth Teller Paradox and is rejected as not a truth bearer. -- 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 | 2024-05-16 07:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v24qsq$16nbi$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334177 |
On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ >>>>>>>> a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>> >>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>> >>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>> >>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be >>>> false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>> >>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>> >>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>> >>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means that >>>> True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>> >>> >>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>> nor false in English. >>> >>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>> >>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>> >>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>> >> >> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the >> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means your >> system is broken. >> > > True(L, true) is false > False(L, true) is false > > This is the Truth Teller Paradox > and is rejected as not a truth bearer. > No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. The value of the value true IS true. true is the logic value of statement tmentrs. "This statment is true" is the truth teller paradox, not the logic value true. This goes back to the ambiguity of trying to discuss logic with words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 08:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v253g6$1jo3l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334186 |
On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ >>>>>>>>> a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>> >>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be >>>>> false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions >>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>> >>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>> nor false in English. >>>> >>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>> >>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>> >>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>> >>> >>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the >>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means your >>> system is broken. >>> >> >> True(L, true) is false >> False(L, true) is false >> >> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >> > > > No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" is true by definition and we would be wrong. "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... It has to be true about something other than itself. "This sentence has five words." Is true about the number of words that it has. True(English, "This sentence has five words.") is true "a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is paradoxical or ungrounded." *Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke* https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* 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). Copyright 2022,2023,2024 PL Olcott > The value of the value > true IS true. > > true is the logic value of statement tmentrs. > > "This statment is true" is the truth teller paradox, not the logic value > true. > "This sentence is true" is correctly formalized as TT is defined as True(TT) "This sentence is true" What is it true about? It is true about being true. What is it true about being true about? It true about being true about being true... > This goes back to the ambiguity of trying to discuss logic with words. -- 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 | 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26fe6$18ad7$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334188 |
On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and >>>>>>>>>> ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to >>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>> being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>> nor false in English. >>>>> >>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>> >>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>> >>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the >>>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means >>>> your system is broken. >>>> >>> >>> True(L, true) is false >>> False(L, true) is false >>> >>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >>> >> >> >> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. > > We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" > is true by definition and we would be wrong. But the fundamental definition of true makes it true. > > "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. > A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... > It has to be true about something other than itself. true IS the fundamental truth object. It isn't a "sentence" it is a truth value. You are just showing you don't actually understand how logic works. > > "This sentence has five words." > Is true about the number of words that it has. > True(English, "This sentence has five words.") is true > > "a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is > paradoxical or ungrounded." So, you thing truth is just paradoxical or ungrounded? I guess that throws a wrench in your idea of a universal system to determine what is true. If true might not be true, what can we say about anything. > > *Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke* > https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf > > *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* > 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). Copyright 2022,2023,2024 PL Olcott > >> The value of the value true IS true. >> >> true is the logic value of statement tmentrs. >> >> "This statment is true" is the truth teller paradox, not the logic >> value true. >> > "This sentence is true" > is correctly formalized as TT is defined as True(TT) > > "This sentence is true" > What is it true about? > It is true about being true. > What is it true about being true about? > It true about being true about being true... > > >> This goes back to the ambiguity of trying to discuss logic with words. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 21:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26g9v$1vvq8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334208 |
On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and >>>>>>>>>>> ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to >>>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, >>>>>>> p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make >>>>>>> True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>>> nor false in English. >>>>>> >>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>>> >>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>>> >>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the >>>>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means >>>>> your system is broken. >>>>> >>>> >>>> True(L, true) is false >>>> False(L, true) is false >>>> >>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >>>> >>> >>> >>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. >> >> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" >> is true by definition and we would be wrong. > > But the fundamental definition of true makes it true. *True by definition must actually be true* *True by definition must actually be true* *True by definition must actually be true* >> >> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. >> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... >> It has to be true about something other than itself. > > true IS the fundamental truth object. > *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott > It isn't a "sentence" it is a truth value. > > You are just showing you don't actually understand how logic works. > >> >> "This sentence has five words." >> Is true about the number of words that it has. >> True(English, "This sentence has five words.") is true >> >> "a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is >> paradoxical or ungrounded." > > > So, you thing truth is just paradoxical or ungrounded? > That is how Kripke defined not a truth-bearer. I specified what grounding means above and previously. *Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke* https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf -- 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 | 2024-05-16 22:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26gtr$18ad7$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334219 |
On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, >>>>>>>>>>>> and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to >>>>>>>> be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, >>>>>>>> p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that >>>>>>>> make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is >>>>>>>> incorrrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>>>> nor false in English. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) >>>>>> with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the >>>>>> resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means >>>>>> your system is broken. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> True(L, true) is false >>>>> False(L, true) is false >>>>> >>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. >>> >>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" >>> is true by definition and we would be wrong. >> >> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true. > > *True by definition must actually be true* > *True by definition must actually be true* > *True by definition must actually be true* So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true? Aren't you just being inconsistant now > >>> >>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. >>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... >>> It has to be true about something other than itself. >> >> true IS the fundamental truth object. >> > > *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* > *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* > *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY DEFINITION, is a truth value. > > *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* > 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true) can be false. > >> It isn't a "sentence" it is a truth value. >> >> You are just showing you don't actually understand how logic works. >> >>> >>> "This sentence has five words." >>> Is true about the number of words that it has. >>> True(English, "This sentence has five words.") is true >>> >>> "a sentence may fail to make a statement if it is >>> paradoxical or ungrounded." >> >> >> So, you thing truth is just paradoxical or ungrounded? >> > > That is how Kripke defined not a truth-bearer. > I specified what grounding means above and previously. > > *Outline of a Theory of Truth --- Saul Kripke* > https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf > So, are you agreeing that True(L, true) needs to be true? and thus can't be false? and thus True(L, p) where p is a statement that is true must be true, and not false. Even if you first said it must be false? And thus your system is shown inconsistant!! You need to resolve this or I will be able to just remind you that you have asserted conditions that make your logic inconsistant and can't refute the logic that shows that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 22:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26ie2$20f8s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334221 |
On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth >>>>>>>>>>>>> bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need >>>>>>>>> to be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could >>>>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, >>>>>>>>> p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that >>>>>>>>> make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is >>>>>>>>> incorrrect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means >>>>>>>>> that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>>>>> nor false in English. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, >>>>>>> p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then >>>>>>> the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn >>>>>>> means your system is broken. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> True(L, true) is false >>>>>> False(L, true) is false >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. >>>> >>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" >>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong. >>> >>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true. >> >> *True by definition must actually be true* >> *True by definition must actually be true* >> *True by definition must actually be true* > > So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true? > > Aren't you just being inconsistant now > A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true. >> >>>> >>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. >>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... >>>> It has to be true about something other than itself. >>> >>> true IS the fundamental truth object. >>> >> >> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* >> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* >> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* > > No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY > DEFINITION, is a truth value. > >> >> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* >> 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott > > Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be > defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true) can > be false. > You already agreed that p is neither true nor false. This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer. If necessary we can go over this single point again and again and again and not talk about anything else until you get it. -- 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 | 2024-05-16 23:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26iuo$18ad7$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334224 |
On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p) >>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need >>>>>>>>>> to be false, but that was based on the assumption that it >>>>>>>>>> could exist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false >>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to >>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above, >>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with >>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) >>>>>>>>>> so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, >>>>>>>>>> which is incorrrect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time >>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that >>>>>>>>>> means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false >>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True >>>>>>>>> nor false in English. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true >>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false >>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has >>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, >>>>>>>> p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then >>>>>>>> the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn >>>>>>>> means your system is broken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True(L, true) is false >>>>>>> False(L, true) is false >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox >>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition. >>>>> >>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings" >>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong. >>>> >>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true. >>> >>> *True by definition must actually be true* >>> *True by definition must actually be true* >>> *True by definition must actually be true* >> >> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true? >> >> Aren't you just being inconsistant now >> > > A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model > of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true. So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true? Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true? or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that True(L, x) doesn't need to be true? > >>> >>>>> >>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about. >>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true... >>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself. >>>> >>>> true IS the fundamental truth object. >>>> >>> >>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* >>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* >>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm* >> >> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY >> DEFINITION, is a truth value. >> >>> >>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker* >>> 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott >> >> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be >> defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true) >> can be false. >> > > You already agreed that p is neither true nor false. > This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer. But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that defined it. > > If necessary we can go over this single point again > and again and again and not talk about anything else > until you get it. > > Try to. p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p) If this is claimed to be a non-truth bearer, then True(L, p) will be false, and thus p is DEFINED to be ~false, or true. So, we have a statement proven to be true, to be a non-truth bearer. And you are shown to just be trying to dance around in circles avoiding the facts. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LOGIC I GAVE. Failiure to point it out allows me to just point out that you logic has been proven to have blown up into inconsistant smitherines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 22:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v26k8e$20nen$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334225 |
On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need
>>>>>>>>>>> to be false, but that was based on the assumption that it
>>>>>>>>>>> could exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>> so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that
>>>>>>>>>>> means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>>>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L,
>>>>>>>>> p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false,
>>>>>>>>> then the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false,
>>>>>>>>> whicn means your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>>>
>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>
>>> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>>>
>>> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>>>
>>
>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>> of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.
>
> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
>
Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
(a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
of the general knowledge of the actual world.
(b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)
Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
know this at the time.
> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>
It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
Truth Teller Paradox.
> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>
> True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>
>>> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY
>>> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>>>> 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
>>>
>>> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be
>>> defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true)
>>> can be false.
>>>
>>
>> You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
>> This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>
> But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that
> defined it.
>
There is no way to make a non-truth-bearer into a truth-bearer.
>>
>> If necessary we can go over this single point again
>> and again and again and not talk about anything else
>> until you get it.
>>
>>
>
> Try to.
>
> p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
>
You already agreed that is neither true nor false.
If we have to keep going over this sub-point over and over
and not talk about anything else until you get it we will.
*Your other points below lost track of this simple point*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*p is neither True nor False*
*Once you get this we can move on to the next sub-point*
*When I repeat these things it really seems to help your concentration*
--
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 07:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v27fpj$18ad7$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334226 |
On 5/16/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be false, but that was based on the assumption that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it could exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>> means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>>>>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make
>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS
>>>>>>>>>> false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is
>>>>>>>>>> false, whicn means your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>>>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>>>>
>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>
>>>> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>>>>
>>>> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>>>>
>>>
>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.
>>
>> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
>>
>
> Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
> of the general knowledge of the actual world.
> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)
>
> Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
> the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
> know this at the time.
In other words, you believe that it is a valid interpretation to change
the meaning of words from what the original speaker took the words to
mean, and still are able to say that he actually MEANT the sentence with
the new meaning of the words.
>
>> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>>
>
> It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
> Truth Teller Paradox.
Yes, which shows that True(L, p) can not exist, or it allows the PROVING
of both truth values for the Truth Teller Paradox, instead of being able
to leave it as a non-truth-bearer.
Fundamentally, your problem is you don't actually know the meaning of
the words you are using, but have assumed (incorrect) meaning from your
ZEROTH order study of the field.
>
>> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>>
>> True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>
>>>> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY
>>>> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>>>>> 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
>>>>
>>>> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be
>>>> defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true)
>>>> can be false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
>>> This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>
>> But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that
>> defined it.
>>
>
> There is no way to make a non-truth-bearer into a truth-bearer.
So, so admit that True(L, p) isn't always at truth-bearer, and thus
isn't the required predicate, and thus your claim it is just turns out
to be a LIE.
>
>>>
>>> If necessary we can go over this single point again
>>> and again and again and not talk about anything else
>>> until you get it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Try to.
>>
>> p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
>>
>
> You already agreed that is neither true nor false.
>
> If we have to keep going over this sub-point over and over
> and not talk about anything else until you get it we will.
>
> *Your other points below lost track of this simple point*
>
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
> *p is neither True nor False*
Then True(L, p), which form the definition of p, is also not a Truth
Bearer, and thus can not be the truth predicate.
>
> *Once you get this we can move on to the next sub-point*
> *When I repeat these things it really seems to help your concentration*
>
Oncd you get that a non-truth-bearer resulting operation can't be a
predicate, you will understand your error.
This has proved to be outside you comprehension.
Maybe if you tried LEARNING by the Socratic Method, as it is intended to
be used, we can get somewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 09:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v27pp4$27tqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334232 |
On 5/17/2024 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/16/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be false, but that was based on the assumption that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it could exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS
>>>>>>>>>>> false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is
>>>>>>>>>>> false, whicn means your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>>>>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>
>>>>> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.
>>>
>>> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
>>>
>>
>> Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
>> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>> of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)
>>
>> Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
>> the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
>> know this at the time.
>
>
> In other words, you believe that it is a valid interpretation to change
> the meaning of words from what the original speaker took the words to
> mean, and still are able to say that he actually MEANT the sentence with
> the new meaning of the words.
>
>>
>>> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>>>
>>
>> It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
>> Truth Teller Paradox.
>
> Yes, which shows that True(L, p) can not exist, or it allows the PROVING
> of both truth values for the Truth Teller Paradox, instead of being able
> to leave it as a non-truth-bearer.
>
>
> Fundamentally, your problem is you don't actually know the meaning of
> the words you are using, but have assumed (incorrect) meaning from your
> ZEROTH order study of the field.
>
>>
>>> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>>>
>>> True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>>>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>>>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY
>>>>> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>>>>>> 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). Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be
>>>>> defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true)
>>>>> can be false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
>>>> This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>
>>> But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that
>>> defined it.
>>>
>>
>> There is no way to make a non-truth-bearer into a truth-bearer.
>
> So, so admit that True(L, p) isn't always at truth-bearer, and thus
> isn't the required predicate, and thus your claim it is just turns out
> to be a LIE.
>
You try and tell me how you can make "a fish" into an
expression that is true or false.
>>
>>>>
>>>> If necessary we can go over this single point again
>>>> and again and again and not talk about anything else
>>>> until you get it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to.
>>>
>>> p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
>>>
>>
>> You already agreed that is neither true nor false.
>>
>> If we have to keep going over this sub-point over and over
>> and not talk about anything else until you get it we will.
>>
>> *Your other points below lost track of this simple point*
>>
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>> *p is neither True nor False*
>
> Then True(L, p), which form the definition of p, is also not a Truth
> Bearer, and thus can not be the truth predicate.
>
>>
>> *Once you get this we can move on to the next sub-point*
>> *When I repeat these things it really seems to help your concentration*
>>
>
> Oncd you get that a non-truth-bearer resulting operation can't be a
> predicate, you will understand your error.
>
On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT VALUE.
--
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 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v28v14$1a3tk$19@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334235 |
On 5/17/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/16/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be false, but that was based on the assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it could exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Job*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make
>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS
>>>>>>>>>>>> false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is false, whicn means your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>>>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.
>>>>
>>>> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
>>> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)
>>>
>>> Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
>>> the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
>>> know this at the time.
>>
>>
>> In other words, you believe that it is a valid interpretation to
>> change the meaning of words from what the original speaker took the
>> words to mean, and still are able to say that he actually MEANT the
>> sentence with the new meaning of the words.
>>
>>>
>>>> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
>>> Truth Teller Paradox.
>>
>> Yes, which shows that True(L, p) can not exist, or it allows the
>> PROVING of both truth values for the Truth Teller Paradox, instead of
>> being able to leave it as a non-truth-bearer.
>>
>>
>> Fundamentally, your problem is you don't actually know the meaning of
>> the words you are using, but have assumed (incorrect) meaning from
>> your ZEROTH order study of the field.
>>
>>>
>>>> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>>>>
>>>> True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>>>>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>>>>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY
>>>>>> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>>>>>>> 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). Copyright 2022 PL
>>>>>>> Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to
>>>>>> be defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L,
>>>>>> true) can be false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
>>>>> This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>
>>>> But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that
>>>> defined it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way to make a non-truth-bearer into a truth-bearer.
>>
>> So, so admit that True(L, p) isn't always at truth-bearer, and thus
>> isn't the required predicate, and thus your claim it is just turns out
>> to be a LIE.
>>
>
> You try and tell me how you can make "a fish" into an
> expression that is true or false.
Where did I say I could.
The problem is that p defined in L as ~True(L, p) is more powerful than
your "a fish" statement.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If necessary we can go over this single point again
>>>>> and again and again and not talk about anything else
>>>>> until you get it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to.
>>>>
>>>> p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You already agreed that is neither true nor false.
>>>
>>> If we have to keep going over this sub-point over and over
>>> and not talk about anything else until you get it we will.
>>>
>>> *Your other points below lost track of this simple point*
>>>
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>
>> Then True(L, p), which form the definition of p, is also not a Truth
>> Bearer, and thus can not be the truth predicate.
>>
>>>
>>> *Once you get this we can move on to the next sub-point*
>>> *When I repeat these things it really seems to help your concentration*
>>>
>>
>> Oncd you get that a non-truth-bearer resulting operation can't be a
>> predicate, you will understand your error.
>>
>
> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>
> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true) returns
false, which says your logic system is broken by being inconsistant.
>
> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT VALUE.
>
No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that out.
This is the problem with the assumption that a Truth Predicate exists,
and is what Tarksi was pointing out, but which seems to be above your
level of understanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 20:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v28vsb$2f45l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334274 |
On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2024 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/16/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be false, but that was based on the assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it could exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Job*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true) is false, whicn means your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>>>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>>>>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
>>>> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
>>>> model
>>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)
>>>>
>>>> Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
>>>> the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
>>>> know this at the time.
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, you believe that it is a valid interpretation to
>>> change the meaning of words from what the original speaker took the
>>> words to mean, and still are able to say that he actually MEANT the
>>> sentence with the new meaning of the words.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
>>>> Truth Teller Paradox.
>>>
>>> Yes, which shows that True(L, p) can not exist, or it allows the
>>> PROVING of both truth values for the Truth Teller Paradox, instead of
>>> being able to leave it as a non-truth-bearer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, your problem is you don't actually know the meaning of
>>> the words you are using, but have assumed (incorrect) meaning from
>>> your ZEROTH order study of the field.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>>>>>
>>>>> True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>>>>>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>>>>>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY
>>>>>>> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>>>>>>>> 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). Copyright 2022 PL
>>>>>>>> Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to
>>>>>>> be defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L,
>>>>>>> true) can be false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
>>>>>> This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that
>>>>> defined it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no way to make a non-truth-bearer into a truth-bearer.
>>>
>>> So, so admit that True(L, p) isn't always at truth-bearer, and thus
>>> isn't the required predicate, and thus your claim it is just turns
>>> out to be a LIE.
>>>
>>
>> You try and tell me how you can make "a fish" into an
>> expression that is true or false.
>
> Where did I say I could.
>
> The problem is that p defined in L as ~True(L, p) is more powerful than
> your "a fish" statement.
>
It is not at all more powerful. p and ~p continue to lack a sequence
of truth reserving operations from expressions of language stipulated
to be true. This makes p the exact same non-truth-bearer as "a fish".
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If necessary we can go over this single point again
>>>>>> and again and again and not talk about anything else
>>>>>> until you get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to.
>>>>>
>>>>> p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You already agreed that is neither true nor false.
>>>>
>>>> If we have to keep going over this sub-point over and over
>>>> and not talk about anything else until you get it we will.
>>>>
>>>> *Your other points below lost track of this simple point*
>>>>
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>
>>> Then True(L, p), which form the definition of p, is also not a Truth
>>> Bearer, and thus can not be the truth predicate.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Once you get this we can move on to the next sub-point*
>>>> *When I repeat these things it really seems to help your concentration*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oncd you get that a non-truth-bearer resulting operation can't be a
>>> predicate, you will understand your error.
>>>
>>
>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>
>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>
> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true) returns
> false, which says your logic system is broken by being inconsistant.
>
Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
This sentence is true.
What is it true about?
It is true about being true.
What is it is true about being true about?
This turns out to be Kripke ungrounded yet Kripke did
not know the algorithmic basis for Kripke grounding.
*Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke* (1975)
https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>
>> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
>> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT VALUE.
>>
>
> No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that out.
>
All that you pointed out is that you still don't understand
the Truth Teller paradox.
> This is the problem with the assumption that a Truth Predicate exists,
> and is what Tarksi was pointing out, but which seems to be above your
> level of understanding.
--
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 21:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v290i2$1a3tk$21@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334276 |
On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/17/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2024 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/16/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for all inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be false, but that was based on the assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it could exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~True(L, p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to make another point that depends on both of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that means that True(L, true) is false, so your system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false in English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good Job*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same semantics as the English one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true) is false, whicn means your system is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, true) is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the Truth Teller Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
>>>>>>>>>>> is true by definition and we would be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>>>> *True by definition must actually be true*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
>>>>>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning} are ONLY
>>>>> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
>>>>> model
>>>>> of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>>>> (b) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a)
>>>>>
>>>>> Years after reading Kripke's article I finally figured out that
>>>>> the above must be what he mean by grounding. He himself did not
>>>>> know this at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you believe that it is a valid interpretation to
>>>> change the meaning of words from what the original speaker took the
>>>> words to mean, and still are able to say that he actually MEANT the
>>>> sentence with the new meaning of the words.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It forms an infinite cycle (in my above algorithm) known as the
>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, which shows that True(L, p) can not exist, or it allows the
>>>> PROVING of both truth values for the Truth Teller Paradox, instead
>>>> of being able to leave it as a non-truth-bearer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fundamentally, your problem is you don't actually know the meaning
>>>> of the words you are using, but have assumed (incorrect) meaning
>>>> from your ZEROTH order study of the field.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
>>>>>>>>>>> A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
>>>>>>>>>>> It has to be true about something other than itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> true IS the fundamental truth object.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>>>> *No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY
>>>>>>>> DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 PL Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to
>>>>>>>> be defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L,
>>>>>>>> true) can be false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
>>>>>>> This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that
>>>>>> defined it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way to make a non-truth-bearer into a truth-bearer.
>>>>
>>>> So, so admit that True(L, p) isn't always at truth-bearer, and thus
>>>> isn't the required predicate, and thus your claim it is just turns
>>>> out to be a LIE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You try and tell me how you can make "a fish" into an
>>> expression that is true or false.
>>
>> Where did I say I could.
>>
>> The problem is that p defined in L as ~True(L, p) is more powerful
>> than your "a fish" statement.
>>
>
> It is not at all more powerful. p and ~p continue to lack a sequence
> of truth reserving operations from expressions of language stipulated
> to be true. This makes p the exact same non-truth-bearer as "a fish".
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If necessary we can go over this single point again
>>>>>>> and again and again and not talk about anything else
>>>>>>> until you get it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You already agreed that is neither true nor false.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have to keep going over this sub-point over and over
>>>>> and not talk about anything else until you get it we will.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Your other points below lost track of this simple point*
>>>>>
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>> *p is neither True nor False*
>>>>
>>>> Then True(L, p), which form the definition of p, is also not a Truth
>>>> Bearer, and thus can not be the truth predicate.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Once you get this we can move on to the next sub-point*
>>>>> *When I repeat these things it really seems to help your
>>>>> concentration*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oncd you get that a non-truth-bearer resulting operation can't be a
>>>> predicate, you will understand your error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>
>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>
>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true) returns
>> false, which says your logic system is broken by being inconsistant.
>>
>
> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said that p
wasn't true.
>
> This sentence is true.
> What is it true about?
> It is true about being true.
> What is it is true about being true about?
>
> This turns out to be Kripke ungrounded yet Kripke did
> not know the algorithmic basis for Kripke grounding.
>
> *Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke* (1975)
> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>
>
>>>
>>> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
>>> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT VALUE.
>>>
>>
>> No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that out.
>>
>
> All that you pointed out is that you still don't understand
> the Truth Teller paradox.
No, YOU don't understand that True MUST be a truth beared, or you are
just a liar that your system has a Truth Predicate.
Remember, we started with
p in L is ~True(L, p)
you say True(L, p) is false
thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the falseness of
True(L, p)
Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
~True(L, ~True(L, p))
Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the
outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation of
a false statement) and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we
can show that p must be false.
Thus we have a contradiction.
So, if you want to claim "Truth Teller Paradox", the only answer is to
say that True(L, p) isn't actually a truth-bearer, and thus it isn't a
predicate, and you have lied that your system has one.
>
>> This is the problem with the assumption that a Truth Predicate exists,
>> and is what Tarksi was pointing out, but which seems to be above your
>> level of understanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 21:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2937a$2jfci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334277 |
On 5/17/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>
>>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>>
>>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true)
>>> returns false, which says your logic system is broken by being
>>> inconsistant.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
>> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
>> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
>
> In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
>
It does have an immutably correct notion of {true on the basis
of meaning} and rejects finite strings as not truth bearers on
this basis.
> The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said that p
> wasn't true.
>
*You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
*You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
*You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>>
>> This sentence is true.
>> What is it true about?
>> It is true about being true.
>> What is it is true about being true about?
>>
>> This turns out to be Kripke ungrounded yet Kripke did
>> not know the algorithmic basis for Kripke grounding.
>>
>> *Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke* (1975)
>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
>>>> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT VALUE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that
>>> out.
>>>
>>
>> All that you pointed out is that you still don't understand
>> the Truth Teller paradox.
>
> No, YOU don't understand that True MUST be a truth beared, or you are
> just a liar that your system has a Truth Predicate.
>
>
> Remember, we started with
>
> p in L is ~True(L, p)
> you say True(L, p) is false
*No you said this* (Socratic question)
> thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the falseness of
> True(L, p)
>
We test p for True or False if neither it is tossed out on its ass.
It is like we are testing if a person is hungry:
We ask is the person dead? The answer is yes and then you
say what if they are still hungry?
> Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
>
We sure as Hell cannot correctly say that.
*THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
*THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
*THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is not true")) is true
~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is true")) is true
>
> Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the
> outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation of
> a false statement)
~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
> and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we
> can show that p must be false.
>
By this same reasoning we can show that "a fish" must be false.
> Thus we have a contradiction.
>
> So, if you want to claim "Truth Teller Paradox", the only answer is to
> say that True(L, p) isn't actually a truth-bearer,
*True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
*True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
*True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
> and thus it isn't a
> predicate, and you have lied that your system has one.
>
>>
>>> This is the problem with the assumption that a Truth Predicate
>>> exists, and is what Tarksi was pointing out, but which seems to be
>>> above your level of understanding.
>
--
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 22:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v294e1$1a3tk$22@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334278 |
On 5/17/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>>>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true)
>>>> returns false, which says your logic system is broken by being
>>>> inconsistant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
>>> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
>>> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
>>
>> In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
>>
>
> It does have an immutably correct notion of {true on the basis
> of meaning} and rejects finite strings as not truth bearers on
> this basis.
Nope, because you said the value of "true" doesn't exist, truth is
dependent on having something to make true.
>
>> The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said that
>> p wasn't true.
>>
>
> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
Yes, which makes True(L, a sentence proven to be true) to be false.
Thus, it is inconsistant.
Or we can use the arguement that since
p is ~True(L, p) which is false that p is alse ~True(L, ~True(L, p)
which, since True(L, p) is "established" to be false, and thus
~True(L,p) to be true, we can say that True(L, ~True(L, p) must be true
and thus p, being not that is false.
So, we can prove that p is both false and true, and thus your system is
BY DEFINITION inconsistant.
>
>>>
>>> This sentence is true.
>>> What is it true about?
>>> It is true about being true.
>>> What is it is true about being true about?
>>>
>>> This turns out to be Kripke ungrounded yet Kripke did
>>> not know the algorithmic basis for Kripke grounding.
>>>
>>> *Outline of a Theory of Truth Saul Kripke* (1975)
>>> https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that now you are now disagreeing with your own self. You are
>>>>> saying the predicates are broken BECAUSE THEY RETURN THE CORRECT
>>>>> VALUE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, your logic system disagrees with itself, I am just pointing that
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All that you pointed out is that you still don't understand
>>> the Truth Teller paradox.
>>
>> No, YOU don't understand that True MUST be a truth beared, or you are
>> just a liar that your system has a Truth Predicate.
>>
>>
>> Remember, we started with
>>
>> p in L is ~True(L, p)
>> you say True(L, p) is false
>
> *No you said this* (Socratic question)
No, YOU said it first, and I agreed.
What else are you going to make it?
(Socratic reply question)
>
>> thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the falseness
>> of True(L, p)
>>
>
> We test p for True or False if neither it is tossed out on its ass.
>
> It is like we are testing if a person is hungry:
> We ask is the person dead? The answer is yes and then you
> say what if they are still hungry?
>
RED HERRINBG.
Since you have claimed that True(L, p) is false, by the stipulated
definition of p, it MUST be a true statement, and thus you have
stiplated that True(L, <a statement proven to be true>) turns out to be
false (since that statement IS p), and thus you system is
>> Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
>>
>
> We sure as Hell cannot correctly say that.
Why not?
>
> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
In other words, you system doesn't allow the assignement of a statement
to have a refenece to itself, which is one of the criteria in Tarski.
>
>> ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
>
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is not true")) is true
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is true")) is true
Nope, "This statment is true" is different then the statement:
P, in L, is defined as ~True(L, P)
It it just
P in L is defined as "P is not true."
The difference is the statement P is not true has the possibility of
being a non-truth bearer, but the predicate True(L, p) doesn't have that
option.
>
>>
>> Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the
>> outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation
>> of a false statement)
>
> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
Yep.
>
>> and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we can show that p
>> must be false.
>>
>
> By this same reasoning we can show that "a fish" must be false.
Nope, because a fish wasn't defined to be any of those sentencds.
>
>> Thus we have a contradiction.
>>
>> So, if you want to claim "Truth Teller Paradox", the only answer is to
>> say that True(L, p) isn't actually a truth-bearer,
>
> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
Right, and that it the problem. (we don't need the True(L, ~x) part though.
p is defined as ~True(L, p) which you say is false.
thus, we can also say, by the definiton of p that
p is defined as ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
The first statement makes p be true, as you said True(L, p) is false.
The second, since p is a true statement, make p false since
True(L,~True(L,p)) would be true, since we just showed that ~True(L,p)
was true since True(L,p) was false.
So, we have an inconsistant logic system, which you don't seem to
understnad.
That, you you need to cut out of your logic system one of the primative
operations of logic.
>
>> and thus it isn't a predicate, and you have lied that your system has
>> one.
>>
>>>
>>>> This is the problem with the assumption that a Truth Predicate
>>>> exists, and is what Tarksi was pointing out, but which seems to be
>>>> above your level of understanding.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-17 22:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v297m8$2k4a6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334279 |
On 5/17/2024 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/17/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return false.
>>>>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true)
>>>>> returns false, which says your logic system is broken by being
>>>>> inconsistant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
>>>> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
>>>> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
>>>
>>> In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
>>>
>>
>> It does have an immutably correct notion of {true on the basis
>> of meaning} and rejects finite strings as not truth bearers on
>> this basis.
>
> Nope, because you said the value of "true" doesn't exist, truth is
> dependent on having something to make true.
>
True(L,x) is defined in terms of its truthmaker.
A whole bunch of expressions are stipulated to have the semantic
property of Boolean true. Being a member of this sat is what makes
them true.
>>
>>> The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said
>>> that p wasn't true.
>>>
>>
>> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>
> Yes, which makes True(L, a sentence proven to be true) to be false.
>
> Thus, it is inconsistant.
>
*It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
*It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
*It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
> Or we can use the arguement that since
>
> p is ~True(L, p) which is false that p is alse
then "a fish" because ~True(English, "a fish") is false that
makes "a fish" false.
> ~True(L, ~True(L, p)
> which, since True(L, p) is "established" to be false, and thus
> ~True(L,p) to be true, we can say that True(L, ~True(L, p) must be true
*ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
*ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
*ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> and thus p, being not that is false.
>
> So, we can prove that p is both false and true, and thus your system is
> BY DEFINITION inconsistant.
>
We can prove that p is both false and true the exact same way
and to the exact same degree that "a fish" is both true and false.
<snip>
>> *No you said this* (Socratic question)
>
> No, YOU said it first, and I agreed.
>
> What else are you going to make it?
>
> (Socratic reply question)
>
>>
>>> thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the falseness
>>> of True(L, p)
>>>
>>
>> We test p for True or False if neither it is tossed out on its ass.
>>
>> It is like we are testing if a person is hungry:
>> We ask is the person dead? The answer is yes and then you
>> say what if they are still hungry?
>>
>
> RED HERRINBG.
>
p is dead!
Every expression that is neither true nor false
is dead to any system of bivalent logic.
> Since you have claimed that True(L, p) is false, by the stipulated
> definition of p,
Nope I never said that. You agreed that
There are no sequence of true preserving operations applied to
expressions that are stipulated to be true that derive p or ~p.
Likewise for "a fish",
"this sentence is not true" and
"this sentence is true".
> it MUST be a true statement, and thus you have
Then you contradict yourself when you said
>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> No, so True(L, p) is false
> stiplated that True(L, <a statement proven to be true>) turns out to be
> false (since that statement IS p), and thus you system is
>
*Illegal stipulation. It must come from here*
(a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
model of the general knowledge of the actual world.
>>> Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
>>>
>>
>> We sure as Hell cannot correctly say that.
>
> Why not?
>>
>> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>
> In other words, you system doesn't allow the assignement of a statement
> to have a refenece to itself, which is one of the criteria in Tarski.
>
>>
>>> ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
>>
>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is not true")) is true
>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is true")) is true
>
> Nope, "This statment is true" is different then the statement:
>
> P, in L, is defined as ~True(L, P)
Yes that one is: "This sentence is not true"
>
> It it just
>
> P in L is defined as "P is not true."
>
The prior one is the ordinary Liar Paradox formalized.
> The difference is the statement P is not true has the possibility of
> being a non-truth bearer, but the predicate True(L, p) doesn't have that
> option.
>
The predicate simple says True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false.
This is the same ESSENTIAL idea as Prolog unable to apply Rules to Facts
to derive p or ~p.
The key difference is that my Facts are a complete and accurate model
of the general knowledge of the actual world...
>>
>>>
>>> Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the
>>> outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation
>>> of a false statement)
>>
>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
>
> Yep.
>
>>
>>> and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we can show that p
>>> must be false.
>>>
>>
>> By this same reasoning we can show that "a fish" must be false.
>
> Nope, because a fish wasn't defined to be any of those sentencds.
>
"~True(L, p)" is merely a finite string input assigned to the variable
named p. We could have as easily have assigned "a fish" to p.
>>
>>> Thus we have a contradiction.
>>>
>>> So, if you want to claim "Truth Teller Paradox", the only answer is
>>> to say that True(L, p) isn't actually a truth-bearer,
>>
>> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
>> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
>> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
>
> Right, and that it the problem. (we don't need the True(L, ~x) part though.
>
False is defined as True(L,~x) and has no separate existence.
> p is defined as ~True(L, p) which you say is false.
> thus, we can also say, by the definiton of p that
>
> p is defined as ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
Let's not change the subject away from the point until
after we have mutual agreement that the original p must
be rejected by any bivalent system of logic.
*I wasted 15 years with Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal*
*I wasted 15 years with Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal*
*I wasted 15 years with Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal*
<snip change-the-subject rebuttal>
In future dialogues I may be laser focused on True or False or
rejected and totally ignore the slightest nuance of any slight
trace of any divergence from this one point.
--
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 | 2024-05-18 08:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2a7p7$1ct7p$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334280 |
On 5/17/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/17/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2024 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/17/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/17/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You already admitted that True(L,p) and False(L,p) both return
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>> This is the correct value that these predicates correctly derived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but that also means that we can show that True(L, true)
>>>>>> returns false, which says your logic system is broken by being
>>>>>> inconsistant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Your version of the Truth Teller paradox has
>>>>> the conventional lack of a truth object as the Liar Paradox
>>>>> and the Truth Teller paradox: What are they true about?
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you logic doesn't have an absolute idea of truth!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> It does have an immutably correct notion of {true on the basis
>>> of meaning} and rejects finite strings as not truth bearers on
>>> this basis.
>>
>> Nope, because you said the value of "true" doesn't exist, truth is
>> dependent on having something to make true.
>>
>
> True(L,x) is defined in terms of its truthmaker.
And create a contradiction.
> A whole bunch of expressions are stipulated to have the semantic
> property of Boolean true. Being a member of this sat is what makes
> them true.
and everything derivable from them with truth preserving operations,
including the defined behavior of the True operator, and thus,
>
>>>
>>>> The object that made the statement true, was that True(L, p) said
>>>> that p wasn't true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>>> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>>> *You agreed that True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false*
>>
>> Yes, which makes True(L, a sentence proven to be true) to be false.
>>
>> Thus, it is inconsistant.
>>
>
> *It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
> *It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
> *It has nothing that it is true about so it is not true*
p is true, because True(L, p) being false made it so, since p was
defined to be ~True(L, p)
THIS is the "true" that True(L, p) has previously defined to be false,
and thus your True predicate is shown to be inconsistant.
>
>> Or we can use the arguement that since
>>
>> p is ~True(L, p) which is false that p is alse
>
> then "a fish" because ~True(English, "a fish") is false that
> makes "a fish" false.
Why?
True didn't make p true because it was an input to the Truth Predicate,
but because p was defined as an expression based on it,
where was this done to "a fish".
You are just proving you don't understand what is being talked about.
>
>> ~True(L, ~True(L, p) which, since True(L, p) is "established" to be
>> false, and thus ~True(L,p) to be true, we can say that True(L,
>> ~True(L, p) must be true
>
> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
> *ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
In other words, you logic doesn't understand how to handle references!
Note, p is different than a statement that SAYS something about a
sentence it mentions, p is defined by a predicate applied to a sentence
(that happens to be itself).
>
>> and thus p, being not that is false.
>>
>> So, we can prove that p is both false and true, and thus your system
>> is BY DEFINITION inconsistant.
>>
>
> We can prove that p is both false and true the exact same way
> and to the exact same degree that "a fish" is both true and false.
How do you "prove" "a fish" to be true and false?
By your definitions it is neither.
That is the difference between the statement p and a sentence that is
trivially a non-truth-bearer (one that doesn't state something).
>
> <snip>
>
>>> *No you said this* (Socratic question)
>>
>> No, YOU said it first, and I agreed.
>>
>> What else are you going to make it?
>>
>> (Socratic reply question)
>>
>>>
>>>> thus the truth value of p MUST be true, since it is not the
>>>> falseness of True(L, p)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We test p for True or False if neither it is tossed out on its ass.
>>>
>>> It is like we are testing if a person is hungry:
>>> We ask is the person dead? The answer is yes and then you
>>> say what if they are still hungry?
>>>
>>
>> RED HERRINBG.
>>
>
> p is dead!
> Every expression that is neither true nor false
> is dead to any system of bivalent logic.
Then so is your "predicate True".
That is the problem you face, since p is DEFINED BY True, for p to be
"dead", so must the idea of the existance of the predicate "True"
>
>> Since you have claimed that True(L, p) is false, by the stipulated
>> definition of p,
>
> Nope I never said that. You agreed that
>
> There are no sequence of true preserving operations applied to
> expressions that are stipulated to be true that derive p or ~p.
Right, which by your definition means that p can not be true.
>
> Likewise for "a fish",
> "this sentence is not true" and
> "this sentence is true".
>
>> it MUST be a true statement, and thus you have
>
> Then you contradict yourself when you said
> >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > No, so True(L, p) is false
No, your system contradicts itself.
you system says that since, at least initially, we can not find a path
to p or ~p, True(L, p) must be false.
But once we have the decision, we now have a path that makes p true, and
thus True is forced into a contradiction.
>
>> stiplated that True(L, <a statement proven to be true>) turns out to
>> be false (since that statement IS p), and thus you system is
>>
>
> *Illegal stipulation. It must come from here*
> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
> model of the general knowledge of the actual world.
FALSE. Formal Logic has NOTHING to do about the actual world, but about
the stipulations (via the axioms of the system).
In fact, it is generally considered impossible to fully formalize the
"actual world" as we would need to actually KNOW all the actual facts
and relationships of the actual world.
Formal logic allows us to define APPROXIMATE models of the "real world",
to try to deduce new things about the "real world".
>
>>>> Thus we can say that p is also the equivalent in L of
>>>>
>>>
>>> We sure as Hell cannot correctly say that.
>>
>> Why not?
>>>
>>> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>>> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>>> *THE ONE LEVEL OF INDIRECT REFERENCE CHANGES EVERYTHING*
>>
>> In other words, you system doesn't allow the assignement of a
>> statement to have a refenece to itself, which is one of the criteria
>> in Tarski.
>>
>>>
>>>> ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
>>>
>>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
>>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is not true")) is true
>>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "This sentence is true")) is true
>>
>> Nope, "This statment is true" is different then the statement:
>>
>> P, in L, is defined as ~True(L, P)
> Yes that one is: "This sentence is not true"
>
>>
>> It it just
>>
>> P in L is defined as "P is not true."
>>
> The prior one is the ordinary Liar Paradox formalized.
>
>> The difference is the statement P is not true has the possibility of
>> being a non-truth bearer, but the predicate True(L, p) doesn't have
>> that option.
>>
>
> The predicate simple says True(L, p) is false and False(L,p) is false.
> This is the same ESSENTIAL idea as Prolog unable to apply Rules to Facts
> to derive p or ~p.
>
> The key difference is that my Facts are a complete and accurate model
> of the general knowledge of the actual world...
Can't be. You don't have a complete and accurate model of the general
knowledge of the actual world.
And to say you system is based on that just makes your system a lie.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which since we showed that True(L, p) was false, that means that the
>>>> outer True predicate sees a true statement (since it is the negation
>>>> of a false statement)
>>>
>>> ~True(English, ~True(English, "a fish")) is true
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>>
>>>> and thus True(L, ~True(L, p)) is true, and thus we can show that p
>>>> must be false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By this same reasoning we can show that "a fish" must be false.
>>
>> Nope, because a fish wasn't defined to be any of those sentencds.
>>
>
> "~True(L, p)" is merely a finite string input assigned to the variable
> named p. We could have as easily have assigned "a fish" to p.
Yes, but we didn't. And the string ~True(L, p) has semantic meaning.
And the semantic meaning leads to a contradiction no matter how you
assign a logical value to True(L, p), and to not assign a value leads to
a contradiction with the definition of a truth predicate.
>
>>>
>>>> Thus we have a contradiction.
>>>>
>>>> So, if you want to claim "Truth Teller Paradox", the only answer is
>>>> to say that True(L, p) isn't actually a truth-bearer,
>>>
>>> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
>>> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
>>> *True(L,x) and True(L,~x) (AKA False) ARE ALWAYS TRUTH-BEARERS*
>>
>> Right, and that it the problem. (we don't need the True(L, ~x) part
>> though.
>>
>
> False is defined as True(L,~x) and has no separate existence.
So? I haven't ever needed to refer to False(L, x) so that is just a red
herring.
>
>> p is defined as ~True(L, p) which you say is false.
>> thus, we can also say, by the definiton of p that
>>
>> p is defined as ~True(L, ~True(L, p))
>
> Let's not change the subject away from the point until
> after we have mutual agreement that the original p must
> be rejected by any bivalent system of logic.
What changing of the point?
You haven't answered the question of how to resolve the contradiction in
your system!
I guess you are just admitting that you concept is just
self-contradictory, and you have no problems with that.
>
> *I wasted 15 years with Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal*
> *I wasted 15 years with Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal*
> *I wasted 15 years with Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal*
>
> <snip change-the-subject rebuttal>
>
> In future dialogues I may be laser focused on True or False or
> rejected and totally ignore the slightest nuance of any slight
> trace of any divergence from this one point.
>
In other worcs, you are admitting that you aren't going to try to fix
the problems pointed out in your system, but just contiune down lines
proven to be false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web