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

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.