Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'TOn 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions.On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon 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 5/13/24 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*
So, you are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about.--
You don't seem to understand that ALL actually means ALL
And, your repeating the claim, just shows that you are an ignorant pathoological liar.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.