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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à l prolog 
Sujet : Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theory
Date : 18. May 2024, 22:00:59
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v2b1dr$2u8oi$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 Sep 24 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal