Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method

On 5/16/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/24 12:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value.
>

>
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive p?

>
On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
 > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*

>
No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist.
>

>
No, so True(L, p) is false
and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>

>
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?

>

>
On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
 > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*

>
Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect.
>

>
No, so False(L, p) is false,
>

>
Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time
*I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>
>

>
right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>

>
You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
nor false in English.
>
You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
>
  True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>
You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
the exact same semantics as the English one.
>

>
No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work. If it IS false, then the resulting comclusion is that True(L, true) is false, whicn means your system is broken.
>

>
  True(L, true) is false
False(L, true) is false
>
This is the Truth Teller Paradox
and is rejected as not a truth bearer.
>

>
>
No True(L, true) must be TRUE by definiition.

>
We could say that "kittens are fifteen story office buildings"
is true by definition and we would be wrong.

>
But the fundamental definition of true makes it true.

>
*True by definition must actually be true*
*True by definition must actually be true*
*True by definition must actually be true*

>
So why did you argue that True(L, true) shouldn't be just true?
>
Aren't you just being inconsistant now
>

 A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate model
of the general knowledge of the actual world are stipulated as true.

So, do you still think that true, as a value, might not be true?
Are you still arguing that True(L, true) doesn't need to be true?
or for any sentance x that has been shown to be true, that
True(L, x) doesn't need to be true?

 

>

>
"True(L, true)" lacks a truth object that it is true about.
A sentence cannot correctly be true about being true...
It has to be true about something other than itself.

>
true IS the fundamental truth object.
>

>
*No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
*No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*
*No it is not, it is the result of this algorithm*

>
No, it is the VALUE of the result of this algorithm, which, BY DEFINITION, is a truth value.
>

>
*The grounding of a truth-bearer to its truthmaker*
True(L,x) returns true when x is derived from a set of truth preserving operations from finite string expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the semantic value of Boolean true. False(L,x) is defined as True(L,~x).   Copyright 2022 PL Olcott

>
Which, by your claim makes True(L, p) false, but that makes p to be defined as ~false, which is true, so you are claiming True(L, true) can be false.
>

 You already agreed that p is neither true nor false.
This means that p is rejected as not a truth-bearer.

But, by doing so, you make it a truth bearer by the sentecne that defined it.

 If necessary we can go over this single point again
and again and again and not talk about anything else
until you get it.
 

Try to.
p is DEFINED to be (in L) the sentence ~True(L, p)
If this is claimed to be a non-truth bearer, then True(L, p) will be false, and thus p is DEFINED to be ~false, or true.
So, we have a statement proven to be true, to be a non-truth bearer.
And you are shown to just be trying to dance around in circles avoiding the facts.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LOGIC I GAVE.
Failiure to point it out allows me to just point out that you logic has been proven to have blown up into inconsistant smitherines.