Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement) |
| Date | 2024-05-27 09:15 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v324iu$2pkb$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (27 earlier) <v2s5td$2psu4$1@dont-email.me> <v2t9ne$2vna0$5@dont-email.me> <v2usea$3be7o$1@dont-email.me> <v2veqj$3e8pb$1@dont-email.me> <v31eit$3ugn4$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 5/27/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-26 13:52:17 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/26/2024 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-25 18:13:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/25/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-24 19:16:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/24/2024 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-23 13:32:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-23 01:03:44 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 11:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-22 15:55:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-21 14:36:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-20 17:48:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "a cat is an animal) is true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(L, LP) expands to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. It is a syntax error to have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both sides ":=" so the expansion is not justified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ϕ(x) there is a sentence ψ such that S ⊢ ψ ↔ ϕ⟨ψ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The sentence ψ is of course not self-referential in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strict sense*,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but mathematically it behaves like one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/#ConSemPar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your quote omitted important details. One is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true about every theory but is about first order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension. Another one is that ϕ(x) is that the claim is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every formula ϕ(x).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The whole article is about self-reference*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ONLY detail that I am referring to is that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional to formalize self-reference incorrectly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Richard and both fixed that*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x := y means x is defined to be another name for y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another name for the meaning of y. Therefore any pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentences that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are otherwise equal but one contains x where rhe other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains y is a pair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of equally true sentences. For example, if p defined as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~True(L, ⟨p⟩)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you mean by the weird ⟨p⟩ quotes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY FREAKING Gödel NUMBERS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY FREAKING Gödel NUMBERS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY FREAKING Gödel NUMBERS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I AM TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AN ACTUAL SEQUENCE OF TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS FROM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXPRESSIONS OF LANGUAGE KNOWN TO BE TRUE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you aren't talking about Tarski's proof of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossibility to define a Truth Predicate per his definition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then Truthbearer(L,p) has the same truth value as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truthbearer(L,~True(L, ⟨p⟩)).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When p defined as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then ~True(L, p) is true, thus a truth-bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that True(L, p) is false, so your True just
>>>>>>>>>>>> erred in describing a true statement as false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Remeber, you just said that ~True(L, p) which has been given
>>>>>>>>>>>> the name of p IS a truth-bearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *You are just not paying close enough attention again*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When p defined as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,~p) is false
>>>>>>>>>>> ~True(L,~p) is true
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> x := y means x is defined to be another name for y
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, so since p is DEFINED to be ~True(L, p), which since
>>>>>>>>>> True(L, p) is false, must be true, that means that you are
>>>>>>>>>> claiming that
>>>>>>>>>> T(L, <a statement that has been shown to be true>) is false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus your True predicat is just broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You ignored the part where Mikko agreed that
>>>>>>>>>>> p defined as ~True(L, p)
>>>>>>>>>>> is a syntax error:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, what it the "Syntax Error"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are we not allowed to negate an expression
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or are we not allowed to assign an expression to a name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, "Syntax Error", by its definition doesn't look at
>>>>>>>>>> Semantics,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-20 17:48:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(English, "a cat is an animal) is true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LP := ~True(L, LP) expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. It is a syntax error to have the same symbol on
>>>>>>>>>>>> both sides ":=" so the expansion is not justified.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the usual rules a definition of a symbol in terms of itself
>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> an acceptable definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can either reject it as a syntax error or let it go ahead
>>>>>>>> and infinitely expand and reject it as a semantic error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a syntax error by the usual rules. If you want to use a
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> syntax then you should specify one, preferably using a different
>>>>>>> symbol
>>>>>>> instead of ":=". It is OK to extend the syntax but one should
>>>>>>> avoid any
>>>>>>> conflict with the usual conventions. Also, if you change the syntax
>>>>>>> rules you should not call it a "definition".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LP := ~True(L, LP) is required to refer to itself on both sides
>>>>>> that is what actual self-reference means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *THE ACTUAL Stanford ARTICLE ON SELF-REFERENCE SAYS*
>>>>>> *THAT THEY MAKE SURE TO ENCODE IS INCORRECTLY*
>>>>>> ϕ(x) there is a sentence ψ such that S ⊢ ψ ↔ ϕ⟨ψ⟩.
>>>>>> *The sentence ψ is of course not self-referential in a strict sense*,
>>>>>> but mathematically it behaves like one.
>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/#ConSemPar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the standard convention throughout the literature to encode
>>>>>> self-reference incorrectly. When the standard convention is to do
>>>>>> these things incorrectly then the standard convention must be
>>>>>> superseded and replaced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is one of the reasons what correctly analyzing these this is
>>>>>> so difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are correct that this is incorrect syntax
>>>>>> LP := ~True(L, LP)
>>>>>> that is yet another reason to reject the Liar Paradox
>>>>>> (and every other self-reference paradox) as ill-formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or one can reject is as a self-contradictory epistemological
>>>>>>>> antinomy
>>>>>>>> having no truth value thus a type mismatch error for any formal
>>>>>>>> system of bivalent logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that can be formulated as a syntax rule. Being an epistemological
>>>>>>> antinomy is semantics as is being true or false but type mismach can
>>>>>>> be handled as syntax error if the syntax rules have a type system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The formalized Liar Paradox
>>>>>> LP := ~True(L, LP) <is> an epistemological antinomy because assuming
>>>>>> that it is true makes it false and assuming that it is false makes it
>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you want to also call it a syntax error seems reasonable to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is not rejected as a syntax error then it does recursively
>>>>>> expand ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))) as Clocksin & Mellish
>>>>>> point out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
>>>>>> equal(X, X).
>>>>>> ?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that is, they will allow you to match a term against an
>>>>>> uninstantiated
>>>>>> subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against
>>>>>> Y, which
>>>>>> appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is
>>>>>> foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is
>>>>>> foo(foo(foo(Y))),
>>>>>> and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite
>>>>>> structure.
>>>>>> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most of the greatest experts in the field are not even sure
>>>>>>>> that there is anything wrong with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing is inherently wrong in an uninterpreted formal system.
>>>>>>> Something may be unsuitable for some purpose but still useful
>>>>>>> for another purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already said that this is a syntax error:
>>>>>> LP := ~True(L, LP)
>>>>>> please at least be consistent with yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't. Because of a syntax error "LP := ~True(L, LP)" is not an
>>>>> expression in the formal system and not in contradiction that there
>>>>> is nothing wrong in the formal system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is where Tarski says that his proof is anchored in the Liar
>>>> Paradox
>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>>>
>>> Nothing to that page contradicts anything I have said above.
>>>
>>>> When you look at my new thread (and completely understand what it says)
>>>> You will see when we correctly formalize Tarski's clumsy formalization
>>>> of the Liar Paradox
>>>
>>> You don't formalize it correctly with a string that is not in the
>>> language of the formnal system. A syntax error excludes all meaning
>>> and in prticular the meaning that Tarksi's expressions have.
>>>
>>
>> Back in 2019 I created a formal system for this purpose:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>
>> Initially it took any MTT expression and output the directed graph
>> of the evaluation sequence of this expression. The current system
>> only outputs the XML of the expression yet the directed graph can
>> still be derived manually.
>
> Users of your MTT basically need two programs: one that checks whether
> the input is syntactiaclly correct and identifies at least one error
> if it is not, and one that checks whether a proof (that may but need
> not have unproven premises) is valid and identifies at least one error
> if it is not.
>
MTT is build with YACC and LEX and outputs the XML of the
input expression.
LP := ~True(L, LP)
definition_2 token="ASSIGN_ALIAS"
| definition_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="LP"
| sentence_2 token="NOT"
| | atomic_sentence_1 token="IDENTIFIER" value="True"
| | | term_list_1
| | | | term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="L"
| | | | term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="LP"
Directed graph of evaulation sequence of LP
Nodes on the left edges on the right
00 NOT 01
01 True 02, 00 // cycle
02 L
<definition_2 token="ASSIGN_ALIAS">
<definition_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="LP"/>
<sentence_2 token="NOT">
<atomic_sentence_1 token="IDENTIFIER" value="True">
<term_list_1>
<term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="L"/>
<term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="LP"/>
</term_list_1>
</atomic_sentence_1>
</sentence_2>
</definition_2>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web