Re: True on the basis of meaning

On 5/10/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/10/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

The entire body of expressions that are {true on the basis of their
meaning} involves nothing more or less than stipulated relations between
finite strings.
>

>
You do know that what you are describing when applied to Formal Systems are the axioms of the system and the most primitively provable theorems.
>

>
YES and there are axioms that comprise the verbal model of the
actual world, thus Quine was wrong.

 You don't understand what Quite was talking about,
 

I don't need to know anything about what he was talking about
except that he disagreed with {true on the basis or meaning}.
I don't care or need to know how he got to an incorrect answer.

>

>
You don't seem to understand what "Formal Logic" actually means.
>

>
Ultimately it is anchored in stipulated relations between finite
strings (AKA axioms) and expressions derived from applying truth
preserving operations to these axioms.

 Which you don't seem to understand what that means.
 

I understand this much more deeply than you do.

Since you INCORRECTLY think that unprovable statements can not be true.
(a) Stipulated true.

(b) Derived from (a)

>

You also don't seem to understand the requirements of "Context" when applying the meaning of the words.
>

>
Sure I do. What I do not do is allow a wide range of subjective
interpretation. {The cow is dead} cannot be interpreted as
{The cow is running around} WITHOUT LYING.

 Nope, you don't understand actual context and only look at oversimplifications.
 

Try and prove all of the details of that.
Try and prove how {some dead cows} do {run around in the pasture}.

For instance, no one but you has talked about cows.
 

It is an analogy, ever heard of isomorphism?

You just don't understand some of the fine details of logic, and thus you just assume the statements made are wrong.
 

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS FOUNDATION OF LOGIC
All of logic is essentially relations between finite strings.

It is possible that All the cows are dead, and All the cows are running around to be true at the same time, if there are no cows present.
 

The you memorized the notion of vacuous truth is worthless.
The tricky part is when you try to plug the notion of
"vacuous truth" into its relations between finite strings basis.

 

>

For instance, in Computation Theory, the only simulation that can be used to determine behavior are non-aborted simulations, so that is the only sort of simulation actually considered to be a normal simulation.
>

>
My ideas can be directly derived from the foundational truths that
I listed above pertaining to relations between finite strings.

 But that isn't the definition of "Meaning of the words".
 

That notion of {simulating termination analyzer} <is> validated
within the notion of {termination analyzer} on the basis of correct
inference.
That you even now try to get away with violating the
basic notion of the term-of-the-art of a {termination
analyzer} indicates profound ignorance or dishonesty.

Meaning of the words does not extend to applying truth perserving operations on the axioms.
 

>

Of course, that blows up your ideas.

>
Only to those that refuse to go through all of the steps and
insist on leaping to conclusions anchored only on the rote
memorization of conventional wisdom.
>

 Nope, you have blown up your logic system by injecting false ideas into it by your ignoring context and mixing up definitons from different fields.
 

*Relations between finite strings*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer