Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/22/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which was wasted since you didn't learn what a True Predicate is.On 5/22/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:The Strengthened Liar Paradox (also called the Strong Liar Paradox)On 5/22/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/22/24 7:55 PM, olcott wrote:>*You are just not paying close enough attention again*>
>
When p defined as ~True(L, p)
True(L,p) is false
True(L,~p) is false
~True(L,~p) is true
>
x := y means x is defined to be another name for y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
Right, so since p is DEFINED to be ~True(L, p), which since True(L, p) is false, must be true, that means that you are claiming that
T(L, <a statement that has been shown to be true>) is false.
>
Thus your True predicat is just broken.
>
Let's use the more intuitive name lp so that we incorporate by
reference (instead of ignore) all of the material about the liar paradox.
>
lp := ~True(L, lp)
But that isn't the traditional "Liar's Paradix", because it is not normally stated in terms of a Truth Predicate.
>
The "Liar's paradox" is a statement that asserts that it is false.
>
That is NOT what the above statement says, or even means.
>
can begin with a Strengthened Liar Sentence such as: This sentence
is not true,
https://iep.utm.edu/liar-paradox/#SH1a
I spent 20,000 hours on this since 2004 and you glance at a couple
of my words and guess that I must be wrong.
No, you don't understand the literature. I just know the need to phrase things for stupid people. Most of the literature is written for people who know the meaning of the words they are reading.YOU ARE ALREADY AHEAD OF THE LITERATURE.>>
You already said that you know the Liar Paradox is neither true
nor false, thus not a truth-bearer. You proved that you know
more about self-reference than all of the standard literature
Nope, shows you don't understand what the literature is saying.
>
THE LITERATURE CANNOT EVEN GET SELF-REFERENCE CORRECTLY
ϕ(x) there is a sentence ψ such that S ⊢ ψ ↔ ϕ⟨ψ⟩.Nope. AS DEFINED.
*The sentence ψ is of course not self-referential in a strict sense*,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/#ConSemPar
On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p)
We will now call this
lp defined as ~True(L, lp) or
lp := ~True(L, lp)
*That Tarski was aware of**Mikko rejects p := ~True(L,p) as a syntax error*>
*which rejects p defined as ~True(L, p) as a syntax error*
>
But he is wrong, there is no syntax error for it in the logic field that Tarski is working in,
< as he assumes that logic is powerful enough toNope, you don't understand what he was saying because he was using log above your understanding.encode references, even to self, into the logical statements of the field.He didn't bother to THINK THIS ALL-THE-WAY THROUGH
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.