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

On 5/15/2024 10:38 PM, immibis wrote:

On 16/05/24 02:36, olcott wrote:

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

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

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

>
*You keep forgetting that you said this*

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?

>

>
*You keep forgetting that you said this*

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

>
So True(L, x) always returns True or False for all
inputs and False(L, x) defined as True(L,~x)
always returns True or False for all inputs.
>
TruthBearer(L, x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ False(L,x))
>
*To make this easier to understand*
  True(English, "a fish") is false
False(English, "a fish") is false
TruthBearer(English, "a fish") is false
>
Thus "a fish" is rejected as a type mismatch error
for any system of bivalent logic, yet the predicates
still answer correctly.
>
>
>
>

 What is True(Logic,"¬True(English,'a fish')")?

*Good question, that took some insight*
x is defined as "¬True(English,'a fish')"
  True(Logic, x) seems true
False(Logic, x) seems false
That seems the same thing as this:
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.
It is the one level of indirect reference that makes this work
in both cases. *Good question*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer