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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 09:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2ad5l$2qlho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334300 |
On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
>
You have not shown that.
All you have shown is a failure to understand that the formalized
Truth Teller Paradox is not a truth bearer.
>
>> 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,
>
This seems to indicate that when on non truth-bearer such as "a fish"
is neither true nor false you still want to process it.
This indicates that you don't understand that when any expression
X is shown to be neither True nor False that X has proven to not
be a truth-bearer thus must be rejected as a type-mismatch error
for any system of bivalent logic.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>
p is not a truth-bearer thus behaves the exact same way as any
other non-truth-bearer such as "a fish".
> THIS is the "true" that True(L, p) has previously defined to be false,
We cannot correctly say it that way because we a leaving
the definition of p as vague.
On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
True(L, p) is false
False(L,p) is false
Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
> and thus your True predicate is shown to be inconsistant.
>
It is not inconsistent and you have only shown your own lack
of understanding when attempting to support such claims.
>>
>>> 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?
>
I simply applied the same reasoning that you applied to
non-truth-bearer p to non-truth-bearer "a fish".
*SINCE REPETITION SEEMS TO HELP YOU CONCENTRATE*
On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
True(L, p) is false
False(L,p) is false
Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
Likewise for "a fish".
> 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".
>
p = "a fish"
True(L, p) is false
False(L,p) is false
Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
The same thing applies when p defined as ~True(L, p)
> 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!
>
*I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
*I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
*I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
As I have been saying for years:
LP := "This sentence is not true"
True(English, LP) is false
False(English, LP) is false
Therefore LP is neither true nor false thus not a truth-bearer
that must be rejected from any bivalent system of formal logic.
*Here is the next level of this*
~True(English, LP) is true
~False(English, LP) is true
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
This sentence is not false: "This sentence is not true" is true
> 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).
>
Forming an infinite evaluation cycle that is rejected by Prolog using:
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2
My system rejects it a different way.
No sequence of true preserving operations applied to
expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p or ~p
True xor False
Is Boolean and thus an element of a bivalent system of logic.
True and False
Is inconsistent thus NOT an element of any bivalent system of logic.
True nor False // {not or} output is true if both inputs are false.
Is not a truth-bearer thus NOT an element of any bivalent system of logic.
>>
>>> 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 using the same incorrect reasoning that you applied to p
"We can prove that p is both false and true"
> By your definitions it is neither.
>
Likewise for p
> That is the difference between the statement p and a sentence that is
> trivially a non-truth-bearer (one that doesn't state something).
>
TT := "This sentence is true"
TT := True(L, TT)
>>
>> <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".
>
Not true and your every attempt to show this had glaring errors.
> 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"
>
TT := True(TT)
True(L, TT) is false
False(L, TT) is false
∴ TT is rejected as not a truth-bearer thus not
an element of any formal system of bivalent logic.
The Truth Teller Paradox in all its forms is not
true ABOUT anything.
>>
>>> 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.
>
The exact same way that "a fish" is not a truth-bearer
thus must be rejected by any formal system of bivalent logic.
>>
>> 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 have never shown this.
The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the
Truth Teller Paradox.
> you system says that since, at least initially, we can not find a path
> to p or ~p, True(L, p) must be false.
>
Likewise when we try a quadrillion different times
LP := ~True(L, LP) remains neither true nor false
thus not a truth-bearer thus not an element of any
formal system of bivalent logic.
> But once we have the decision, we now have a path that makes p true, and
> thus True is forced into a contradiction.
>
*If we did then we could make "a fish" true*
There exists no such path for any non-truth-bearer.
All non-truth bearers must be immediately rejected by every formal
system of bivalent logic.
This same thing equally applies to every expression X such
that True(L,x) nor False(L,x)
That you understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
is better than most professional philosophers that specialize
in truth-bearers and truth-makers. A leading author in this
field says that the Liar Paradox might not be true or 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.
>
> FALSE. Formal Logic has NOTHING to do about the actual world, but about
> the stipulations (via the axioms of the system).
>
(a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
model of the general knowledge of the actual world.
Such a system knows that {cats} <are> {animals}.
> 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.
>
Only the facts of general knowledge of the actual world, context
specific details are not included yet can be provided as a discourse
knowledge ontology.
The general knowledge of the actual world is finite.
Every detail of the actual world is infinite.
> Formal logic allows us to define APPROXIMATE models of the "real world",
> to try to deduce new things about the "real world".
>
A {cat} is not {approximately} an {animal}
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
A complete and accurate model of the general knowledge of
the actual world is finite and does exist. It will need to
be updated from time to time. Pluto is no longer considered
to be a planet.
> And to say you system is based on that just makes your system a lie.
>
The set of general facts that the set of minds and the set of
writings knows does exist in these minds and writings. We only
need a very tiny subset of these to correctly reject all of the
common epistemological antinomies.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
LP := ~True(L, LP) is simply the formalized liar paradox
and cannot exist in any formal system of bivalent logic.
> And the semantic meaning leads to a contradiction no matter how you
> assign a logical value to True(L, p),
Not at all its logical value is false.
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> No, so True(L, p) is false
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
*I am stopping here*
*I am stopping here*
*I am stopping here*
*I am stopping here*
*I am stopping here*
--
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 10:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2ae6h$1ct7p$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334304 |
On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> You have not shown that.
> All you have shown is a failure to understand that the formalized
> Truth Teller Paradox is not a truth bearer.
>
>>
>>> 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,
>>
>
> This seems to indicate that when on non truth-bearer such as "a fish"
> is neither true nor false you still want to process it.
>
> This indicates that you don't understand that when any expression
> X is shown to be neither True nor False that X has proven to not
> be a truth-bearer thus must be rejected as a type-mismatch error
> for any system of bivalent logic.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>
>
> p is not a truth-bearer thus behaves the exact same way as any
> other non-truth-bearer such as "a fish".
>
>> THIS is the "true" that True(L, p) has previously defined to be false,
>
> We cannot correctly say it that way because we a leaving
> the definition of p as vague.
>
> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
> True(L, p) is false
> False(L,p) is false
>
> Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
> mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
>
>> and thus your True predicate is shown to be inconsistant.
>>
>
> It is not inconsistent and you have only shown your own lack
> of understanding when attempting to support such claims.
>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>
> I simply applied the same reasoning that you applied to
> non-truth-bearer p to non-truth-bearer "a fish".
>
> *SINCE REPETITION SEEMS TO HELP YOU CONCENTRATE*
> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
> True(L, p) is false
> False(L,p) is false
>
> Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
> mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
> Likewise for "a fish".
>
>> 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".
>>
> p = "a fish"
> True(L, p) is false
> False(L,p) is false
> Therefore p is not a truth-bearer and rejected as a type
> mismatch error for any formal system of bivalent logic.
> The same thing applies when p defined as ~True(L, p)
>
>> 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!
>>
>
> *I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
> *I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
> *I AM NOT SURE IF YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS*
>
> As I have been saying for years:
> LP := "This sentence is not true"
> True(English, LP) is false
> False(English, LP) is false
> Therefore LP is neither true nor false thus not a truth-bearer
> that must be rejected from any bivalent system of formal logic.
>
> *Here is the next level of this*
> ~True(English, LP) is true
> ~False(English, LP) is true
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
> This sentence is not false: "This sentence is not true" is true
>
>> 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).
>>
>
> Forming an infinite evaluation cycle that is rejected by Prolog using:
> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2
>
> My system rejects it a different way.
> No sequence of true preserving operations applied to
> expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p or ~p
>
> True xor False
> Is Boolean and thus an element of a bivalent system of logic.
>
> True and False
> Is inconsistent thus NOT an element of any bivalent system of logic.
>
> True nor False // {not or} output is true if both inputs are false.
> Is not a truth-bearer thus NOT an element of any bivalent system of logic.
>
>>>
>>>> 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 using the same incorrect reasoning that you applied to p
> "We can prove that p is both false and true"
>
>> By your definitions it is neither.
>>
> Likewise for p
>
>> That is the difference between the statement p and a sentence that is
>> trivially a non-truth-bearer (one that doesn't state something).
>>
>
> TT := "This sentence is true"
> TT := True(L, TT)
>
>>>
>>> <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".
>>
>
> Not true and your every attempt to show this had glaring errors.
>
>> 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"
>>
>
> TT := True(TT)
> True(L, TT) is false
> False(L, TT) is false
> ∴ TT is rejected as not a truth-bearer thus not
> an element of any formal system of bivalent logic.
>
> The Truth Teller Paradox in all its forms is not
> true ABOUT anything.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> The exact same way that "a fish" is not a truth-bearer
> thus must be rejected by any formal system of bivalent logic.
>
>>>
>>> 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 have never shown this.
> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the
> Truth Teller Paradox.
No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you
don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be.
If, as you claim p in L defined as ~True(L, p) results in True(L, p)
being false, then p must be a true statement, and thus True(L, <a true
statement>) has been claim to return false, and thus True has created a
contradiction.
>
>> you system says that since, at least initially, we can not find a path
>> to p or ~p, True(L, p) must be false.
>>
>
> Likewise when we try a quadrillion different times
> LP := ~True(L, LP) remains neither true nor false
> thus not a truth-bearer thus not an element of any
> formal system of bivalent logic.
Except that BY THE DEFINITION of the True predicate, as ALWAYS have a
truth value, and not ('~') of a truth value is a truth value, your
definiton of the LP MUST have a truth value and be a truth-bearer.
If you claim LP isn't a truth-bearer, then True(L, LP) isn't a
truth-bearer and thus True has failed to be a precicate
>
>> But once we have the decision, we now have a path that makes p true,
>> and thus True is forced into a contradiction.
>>
>
> *If we did then we could make "a fish" true*
Only by the principle of explosion that you don't understand.
>
> There exists no such path for any non-truth-bearer.
But True deciding that no such path exists, creates one to the negation
of True() value of the statement.
>
> All non-truth bearers must be immediately rejected by every formal
> system of bivalent logic.
And the method that True has to do that is to return false.
You don't seem to understand that. True has only two option, declare a
statement as true, or declare that it is not true, which means either
false or not a truth-bearer.
>
> This same thing equally applies to every expression X such
> that True(L,x) nor False(L,x)
Right, which is where to contradiction occurs.
>
> That you understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer
> is better than most professional philosophers that specialize
> in truth-bearers and truth-makers. A leading author in this
> field says that the Liar Paradox might not be true or false.
But the Liar Paradox built on a Truth Predicate MUST be a truth bearer,
which creates a contradiction, so we can't have Truth Predicates.
>
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>
> (a) A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
> model of the general knowledge of the actual world.
> Such a system knows that {cats} <are> {animals}.
>
But there is no set of finite strings that form a accurate model of the
properties of the actual world.
>> 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.
>>
>
> Only the facts of general knowledge of the actual world, context
> specific details are not included yet can be provided as a discourse
> knowledge ontology.
But if all knowledge has been stipulated,
>
> The general knowledge of the actual world is finite.
> Every detail of the actual world is infinite.
No, because of known relationships, we can prove an infinte number of
statements, and thus to encode ALL knowledge, requries an infinite set.
>
>> Formal logic allows us to define APPROXIMATE models of the "real
>> world", to try to deduce new things about the "real world".
>>
>
> A {cat} is not {approximately} an {animal}
Nope, but there are a number of "facts" that are only know to an
approximation, some without even hard limits to the degree of approximation.
>
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> A complete and accurate model of the general knowledge of
> the actual world is finite and does exist. It will need to
> be updated from time to time. Pluto is no longer considered
> to be a planet.
The show it.
>
>> And to say you system is based on that just makes your system a lie.
>>
>
> The set of general facts that the set of minds and the set of
> writings knows does exist in these minds and writings. We only
> need a very tiny subset of these to correctly reject all of the
> common epistemological antinomies.
But that doesn't work.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> LP := ~True(L, LP) is simply the formalized liar paradox
> and cannot exist in any formal system of bivalent logic.
But you just expressed it, so if True exists it needs to handle it.
That is your problem.
>
>> And the semantic meaning leads to a contradiction no matter how you
>> assign a logical value to True(L, p),
>
> Not at all its logical value is false.
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
But it True(L, p) is false, then since p is DEFINED as not True(L, p)
then p must be true.
Do you not agree that the complement of a logical value of false is true?
>
> On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > No, so True(L, p) is false
>
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
> Why do you keep disagreeing with yourself on this?
Becaue your own logic system disagrees with you.
>
> *I am stopping here*
> *I am stopping here*
> *I am stopping here*
> *I am stopping here*
> *I am stopping here*
>
Good, because you don't understand what you are talking about.
You logic system has just been proved defective as it has contradicitons
in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 11:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2am4p$2sdl6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334306 |
On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>> >> >> You have never shown this. >> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >> Truth Teller Paradox. > > No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you > don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. > My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth preserving operations that derive x from A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is defined as True(L,x). > If, as you claim p in L defined as ~True(L, p) results in True(L, p) > being false, then p must be a true statement... The wording of that seems to say that because p is known to be untrue that this makes p true. -- 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 12:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2amkc$1ct7p$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334314 |
On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>> >>> >>> You have never shown this. >>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>> Truth Teller Paradox. >> >> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you >> don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >> > > My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every > finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth > preserving operations that derive x from And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. To meet your definition, True(L, p) needs to respond some how with a non-truth-bearing answer, which is outside its defined behavior, so it just can not exist. > > A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate > verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that > form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have the > semantic value of Boolean true. > > False(L,x) is defined as True(L,x). > >> If, as you claim p in L defined as ~True(L, p) results in True(L, p) >> being false, then p must be a true statement... > > The wording of that seems to say that because p is known to be > untrue that this makes p true. > Yep, because p is defined by p := ~True(L, p) if True(L, p) decides that p is untrue and returns falsem then p becomes a true statement, which True has decided incorrectly on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 12:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2aobj$2sdma$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334316 |
On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have never shown this. >>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>> >>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you >>> don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>> >> >> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >> preserving operations that derive x from > > And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving > operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it > contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of > false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. > 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, > *To help you concentrate I repeated this* The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both contradict themselves that is why they must be screened out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both contradict themselves that is why they must be screened out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both contradict themselves that is why they must be screened out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both contradict themselves that is why they must be screened out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both contradict themselves that is why they must be screened out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* -- 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 13:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2ap1t$1ct7o$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334319 |
On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>> >>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you >>>> don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>> >>> >>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>> preserving operations that derive x from >> >> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >> > 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, > > > > *To help you concentrate I repeated this* > The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both > contradict themselves that is why they must be screened > out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about. You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant pathoological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 14:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2avus$2u35v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334320 |
On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>> >>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because >>>>> you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>> >>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >>> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >>> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >>> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>> >> 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, >> > >> >> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* > > And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. > YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR > So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about. > > You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL > > And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant > pathoological liar. -- 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 15:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2b10q$1ct7p$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334327 |
On 5/18/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because >>>>>> you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>> >>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >>>> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >>>> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >>>> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>> >>> 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, >>> > >>> >>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >> >> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >> > > YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T > WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN > THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE > TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR > > YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T > WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN > THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE > TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR > > YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T > WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN > THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE > TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR So True(L, p) says p isn't true, by saying false, which makes p be a true statement, and thus True creates an inconsistant logic system. There is no "screening out the type error before it occurs". Thus, you appear to be just totally ignorant of the basics of how logic works. Please TRY to expalin what keeps this inconsistancy from occuring. Does True just not answer about p? That isn't allowed Dies Trye replay with a non-truth-bearing answer for p? That also is not allowed? IF True(L, p) does return false, what step in the logic I showed keep the inconsistance from occuring. Note, if we don't look at False(L, p) also being false, there is nothing that stops us from doing the steps. Formal logic doesn't have an "interrupt" functions that lets you trigger and say you can't do something that would be allowed. > >> So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about. >> >> You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL >> >> And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant >> pathoological liar. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 14:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2b0jd$2u8oi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334320 |
On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>> >>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because >>>>> you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>> >>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >>> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >>> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >>> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>> >> 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, >> > >> >> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* > > And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. > YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR The first thing that the formal system does with any arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) If it is not a Truth-bearer then the formal system outputs "Type Mismatch Error x is not a Truth-bearer" and no further evaluation is performed. After the formal system has screened out non-truth-bearers then ~True(L,x) always means True(L,~x) AKA False(L,x). > So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about. > > You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL > > And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant > pathoological liar. -- 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 15:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2b17b$1ct7p$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334330 |
On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because >>>>>> you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>> >>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >>>> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >>>> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >>>> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>> >>> 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, >>> > >>> >>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >> >> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >> > > YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T > WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN > THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE > TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR > > The first thing that the formal system does with any > arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: > Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. There is no "interrupt" that says we have to confirm something before we can do something. > > If it is not a Truth-bearer then the formal system > outputs "Type Mismatch Error x is not a Truth-bearer" > and no further evaluation is performed. > So, you don't understand what a Truth Predicate is. Fine, you are just admitting you are an ignorant pathological liar. > After the formal system has screened out non-truth-bearers > then ~True(L,x) always means True(L,~x) AKA False(L,x). Nope, ~True(L,x) means that x is not a true statement, it could be a false statement or a non-truth-bearer. You are just admitting that you are an incompentent ignorant pathological liar on this topic. > >> So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about. >> >> You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL >> >> And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant >> pathoological liar. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 15:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2b1dr$2u8oi$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334333 |
On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because >>>>>>> you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>> >>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning >>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making >>>>> an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>>> >>>> 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, >>>> > >>>> >>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>> >>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>> >> >> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >> >> The first thing that the formal system does with any >> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) > > No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. > The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. -- 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 18:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2b9mo$1ecj9$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334334 |
On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because >>>>>>>> you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>> >>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning >>>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making >>>>>> an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>>>> >>>>> 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, >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>> >>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>> >>> >>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>> >>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >> >> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >> > > The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers > are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. > > > Not allowed. I guess your system just doesn't have a Truth Predicate per the Definition. Shows how you have just been lying about knowing what you are talking about. Your answer is basically saying Tarski is wrong, but I can't actually do what I said I could do, so I guess he was right but I will just lie and say he is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 17:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2bb6d$308qd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334338 |
On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems >>>>>>>>> because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been >>>>>>>>> defined to be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of >>>>>>>> truth >>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning >>>>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making >>>>>>> an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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, >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>> >>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>> >>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>> >>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>> >> >> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >> >> >> > > Not allowed. > My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth preserving operations that derive x from A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) -- 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 19:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2bc5o$1ecj9$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334340 |
On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems >>>>>>>>>> because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been >>>>>>>>>> defined to be. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for >>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of >>>>>>>>> truth >>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning >>>>>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in >>>>>>>> making an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence >>>>>>>> exists. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>>> >>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>> >>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> >>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>> >>> >>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Not allowed. >> > > My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every > finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth > preserving operations that derive x from > > A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate > verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that > form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have > the semantic value of Boolean true. > > *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) > *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) > *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) > *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) > *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) > > So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? That means that the predicate establishes that there IS a seriers of truth perservion operations that derive the expreson ~True(L, p). And if so, doesnt that mean that the truth value of p will be true, since p is defined as the logical negation of True(L, p), which we just establish HAS a sequence of truth perservion operations as indicated by the truth predicate. and if so, doesn't that mean that your True(L, x) just returned the false value for an input that was, by your definitions, true? How does that work? Deflect again and I will just point out that you have refused to answer because you are just admitting you can't figure out how to fix your broken system. After all, you have proven that just because you thinkl something is self-evedently true, doesn't mean that it is true, as you sense of self-evedent is just broken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 22:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2bsog$36vvc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334341 |
On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems >>>>>>>>>>> because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been >>>>>>>>>>> defined to be. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for >>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of >>>>>>>>>> truth >>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning >>>>>>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in >>>>>>>>> making an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence >>>>>>>>> exists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>>> >>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>> >>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Not allowed. >>> >> >> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >> preserving operations that derive x from >> >> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate >> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that >> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have >> the semantic value of Boolean true. >> >> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >> >> > > So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a sequence > of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? > Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good. > So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your > definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? > It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: True(English, "This sentence is not true") > That means that the predicate establishes that there IS a seriers of > truth perservion operations that derive the expreson ~True(L, p). > You keep confusing: This sentence is not true. with This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true". I have spent 20,000 hours on this YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE. > And if so, doesnt that mean that the truth value of p will be true, > since p is defined as the logical negation of True(L, p), which we just > establish HAS a sequence of truth perservion operations as indicated by > the truth predicate. > In Prolog both the Liar Paradox and the Truth Teller Paradox get stuck in an infinite loop (technically a cycle in the directed graph of their evaluation sequence). https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 Catches this cycle and reject it. This sentence is not true. What is it not true about? It is not true about being not true. What is it not true about being not true about? It is not true about being not true about being not true... > and if so, doesn't that mean that your True(L, x) just returned the > false value for an input that was, by your definitions, true? > > How does that work? > It must work the same as Prolog and detect cycles in its evaluation graph. > Deflect again and I will just point out that you have refused to answer > because you are just admitting you can't figure out how to fix your > broken system. > > After all, you have proven that just because you thinkl something is > self-evedently true, doesn't mean that it is true, as you sense of > self-evedent is just broken. -- 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 | 2024-05-19 07:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2cpb1$1g2n8$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334345 |
On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems >>>>>>>>>>>> because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been >>>>>>>>>>>> defined to be. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for >>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence >>>>>>>>>>> of truth >>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning >>>>>>>>>> false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in >>>>>>>>>> making an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence >>>>>>>>>> exists. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>> >>>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not allowed. >>>> >>> >>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>> preserving operations that derive x from >>> >>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate >>> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that >>> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have >>> the semantic value of Boolean true. >>> >>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>> >>> >> >> So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a >> sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? >> > Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good. > >> So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your >> definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? >> > > It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: > True(English, "This sentence is not true") > Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, but by its definition, True(L, x) can not. Maybe your problem is you just forgot to learn the meaning of the key words in the things you want to talk about. >> That means that the predicate establishes that there IS a seriers of >> truth perservion operations that derive the expreson ~True(L, p). >> > > You keep confusing: > This sentence is not true. > with > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true". > I have spent 20,000 hours on this YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE. I have been using NEITHER of those sentences, only YOU have in your confusion. If your problem is that you can not think of Formal statements as Formal statement, but need to translate them into sloppy English, that is YOUR problem, and means you need to just admit you don't know what you are talking about. > >> And if so, doesnt that mean that the truth value of p will be true, >> since p is defined as the logical negation of True(L, p), which we >> just establish HAS a sequence of truth perservion operations as >> indicated by the truth predicate. >> > In Prolog both the Liar Paradox and the Truth Teller Paradox > get stuck in an infinite loop (technically a cycle in the directed > graph of their evaluation sequence). I don't CARE are PROLOG, as it doesn't actually define what we are talking about. P > > https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 > Catches this cycle and reject it. So, that just means that Prolog (or you) can not handle the logic system, as one of the requirements for the proof was that the logic was capable of expressing sentences with references to sentences, even its self. > > This sentence is not true. > What is it not true about? > It is not true about being not true. > What is it not true about being not true about? > It is not true about being not true about being not true... RED HERRING Proving you have run out of thoughts that actually relate to the problem. > >> and if so, doesn't that mean that your True(L, x) just returned the >> false value for an input that was, by your definitions, true? >> >> How does that work? >> > > It must work the same as Prolog and detect cycles > in its evaluation graph. Nope. As shown above, Prolog can't handle this logic system. Yes, perhaps in a logic system fully handlable by Prolog, you can probably define a truth primitive. Since most real work in formal logic isn't in such systems, that is uninteresting. > >> Deflect again and I will just point out that you have refused to >> answer because you are just admitting you can't figure out how to fix >> your broken system. As I predicted, you are just proving you don't even understand the system that is being talk about, It is just like you claim that you can't show that 2 + 3 = 5 to a person that doesn't understan Numbers. You can't show the problem of a truth predicate to someone that doesn't understand how logic really works. >> >> After all, you have proven that just because you thinkl something is >> self-evedently true, doesn't mean that it is true, as you sense of >> self-evedent is just broken. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-19 08:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2cvj6$3ddo5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334348 |
On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems >>>>>>>>>>>>> because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false >>>>>>>>>>>> for every >>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence >>>>>>>>>>>> of truth >>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by >>>>>>>>>>> returning false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that >>>>>>>>>>> True, in making an answer of false, has asserted that such a >>>>>>>>>>> sequence exists. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>>>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not allowed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>> >>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate >>>> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that >>>> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have >>>> the semantic value of Boolean true. >>>> >>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a >>> sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? >>> >> Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good. >> >>> So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your >>> definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? >>> >> >> It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: >> True(English, "This sentence is not true") >> > > > Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, but > by its definition, True(L, x) can not. > True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. ~True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. when x is defined as ~True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. Compared to most of the rest of the world including leading experts in this field you are doing quite well with this. One of the top experts in the field of truthmaker maximalism is not even sure that "This sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#Max This means that you are ahead of the leading experts in the field. > Maybe your problem is you just forgot to learn the meaning of the key > words in the things you want to talk about. > >>> That means that the predicate establishes that there IS a seriers of >>> truth perservion operations that derive the expreson ~True(L, p). >>> >> >> You keep confusing: >> This sentence is not true. >> with >> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true". >> I have spent 20,000 hours on this YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE. > > I have been using NEITHER of those sentences, only YOU have in your > confusion. > You have been saying things with isomorphic structure. LP := ~True(L,LP) True(L,LP) is false True(L,~LP) is false ~True(True(L,LP)) is true *This last one does not make LP true* *This last one has one level of indirect reference* > If your problem is that you can not think of Formal statements as Formal > statement, but need to translate them into sloppy English, that is YOUR > problem, and means you need to just admit you don't know what you are > talking about. > >> >>> And if so, doesnt that mean that the truth value of p will be true, >>> since p is defined as the logical negation of True(L, p), which we >>> just establish HAS a sequence of truth perservion operations as >>> indicated by the truth predicate. >>> >> In Prolog both the Liar Paradox and the Truth Teller Paradox >> get stuck in an infinite loop (technically a cycle in the directed >> graph of their evaluation sequence). > > I don't CARE are PROLOG, as it doesn't actually define what we are > talking about. > > P > >> >> https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=unify_with_occurs_check/2 >> Catches this cycle and reject it. > > So, that just means that Prolog (or you) can not handle the logic > system, as one of the requirements for the proof was that the logic was > capable of expressing sentences with references to sentences, even its > self. > *Maybe you do not understand that a cycle in a directed graph is* If you do not understand this then you can't understand that when an expression has a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence that this expression cannot be evaluated. It is the same basic idea as an unconditional infinite loop in a program. The evaluation and the program cannot terminate. >> >> This sentence is not true. >> What is it not true about? >> It is not true about being not true. >> What is it not true about being not true about? >> It is not true about being not true about being not true... > > RED HERRING > Not at all. I have expressly shown the cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence of "This sentence is not true". > Proving you have run out of thoughts that actually relate to the problem. > > >> >>> and if so, doesn't that mean that your True(L, x) just returned the >>> false value for an input that was, by your definitions, true? >>> >>> How does that work? >>> >> >> It must work the same as Prolog and detect cycles >> in its evaluation graph. > > > Nope. As shown above, Prolog can't handle this logic system. > > Yes, perhaps in a logic system fully handlable by Prolog, you can > probably define a truth primitive. Since most real work in formal logic > isn't in such systems, that is uninteresting. > *This knowledge ontology* A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model of the general knowledge of the actual world. is an inheritance hierarchy of formalized natural language along with formal language that is similar to type theory in the is has an unlimited number or orders of logic. >> >>> Deflect again and I will just point out that you have refused to >>> answer because you are just admitting you can't figure out how to fix >>> your broken system. > > As I predicted, you are just proving you don't even understand the > system that is being talk about, It is just like you claim that you > can't show that 2 + 3 = 5 to a person that doesn't understan Numbers. > > You can't show the problem of a truth predicate to someone that doesn't > understand how logic really works. > You are incorrect on this point yet doing better than the leading experts in the field simply because you fully understand that "This sentence is not true." is definitely not a truth bearer. >>> >>> After all, you have proven that just because you thinkl something is >>> self-evedently true, doesn't mean that it is true, as you sense of >>> self-evedent is just broken. >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-19 17:03 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2d0qp$3dlkm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334352 |
On 2024-05-19 13:41:56 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >>>>>>>>>>>> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>>>>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not allowed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>> >>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate >>>>> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that >>>>> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have >>>>> the semantic value of Boolean true. >>>>> >>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a >>>> sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? >>>> >>> Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good. >>> >>>> So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your >>>> definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? >>>> >>> >>> It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: >>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") >>> >> >> >> Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, but >> by its definition, True(L, x) can not. >> > > True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. > when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. When x is defined as True(L,x) then x is what True(L,x) is, in this case a truth bearer. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-19 09:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2d1io$3dplm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334354 |
On 5/19/2024 9:03 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-19 13:41:56 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for every >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by >>>>>>>>>>>>> returning false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that >>>>>>>>>>>>> True, in making an answer of false, has asserted that such >>>>>>>>>>>>> a sequence exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT >>>>>>>>>>>> OCCURS* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out >>>>>>>>>>> expressions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>>>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>>>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>>>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>>>>>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not allowed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>> >>>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate >>>>>> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that >>>>>> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have >>>>>> the semantic value of Boolean true. >>>>>> >>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a >>>>> sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? >>>>> >>>> Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good. >>>> >>>>> So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that >>>>> your definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: >>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") >>>> >>> >>> >>> Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, >>> but by its definition, True(L, x) can not. >>> >> >> True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. >> when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. > > When x is defined as True(L,x) then x is what True(L,x) is, > in this case a truth bearer. > This is known as the Truth Teller Paradox *This is the best of the references that I found* https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/64138/logical-semantic-and-self-referential-paradoxes-the-truth-teller-and-the-liar "This sentence is true" // is the truth teller paradox TT := True(L,TT) // is the precisely formalized truth teller paradox -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-20 10:55 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method |
| Message-ID | <v2evl5$3snmj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334355 |
On 2024-05-19 14:15:51 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/19/2024 9:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-19 13:41:56 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, your system contradicts itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have never shown this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth Teller Paradox. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> false, has asserted that such a sequence exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *To help you concentrate I repeated this* >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict themselves that is why they must be screened >>>>>>>>>>>>> out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T >>>>>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN >>>>>>>>>>> THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE >>>>>>>>>>> TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The first thing that the formal system does with any >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer: >>>>>>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers >>>>>>>>> are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every >>>>>>> finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth >>>>>>> preserving operations that derive x from >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate >>>>>>> verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that >>>>>>> form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have >>>>>>> the semantic value of Boolean true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>> *This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a >>>>>> sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right? >>>>>> >>>>> Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good. >>>>> >>>>>> So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your >>>>>> definition will say that True(L, p) will return false? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is the perfectly isomorphic to this: >>>>> True(English, "This sentence is not true") >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, but >>>> by its definition, True(L, x) can not. >>>> >>> >>> True(L,x) is always a truth bearer. >>> when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer. >> >> When x is defined as True(L,x) then x is what True(L,x) is, >> in this case a truth bearer. > This is known as the Truth Teller Paradox Doesn't matter. But ir you say that "x is not a truth bearer" then, by a truth preserving transformation, you imply that True(L,x) is not a truth bearer. As you already said that "True(L,x)" is always a truth bearer, you imply, by another truth preeserving transformation, that something both is and is not a truth bearer. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web