Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/23/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope, you THINK you are correct, and have convinced yourself you are correct, so you don't look at the actual definitions or evidence.On 5/22/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:I am correct and you simply do not understand that I am correct,On 5/22/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/22/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:>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.
>
The Strengthened Liar Paradox (also called the Strong Liar Paradox)
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.
Which was wasted since you didn't learn what a True Predicate is.
>
yet most of the greatest experts in the field are not even aware
that there is something definitely wrong with the Liar Paradox.
On 5/23/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:only if you decide to.
>
> By the usual rules a definition of a symbol in terms
> of itself is not an acceptable definition.
>
lp := ~True(L, lp) expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))
One can either reject it as a syntax error or let it go aheadNope.
and infinitely expand and reject it as a semantic error. Or
one can reject is as a self-contradictory epistemological antinomy
having no truth value thus a type mismatch error for any formal
system of bivalent logic.
Most of the greatest experts in the field are not even sure that thereNope, you just don't understand what they are saying.\
is anything wrong with it the Liar Paradox. None of the experts in the
field formalize the Liar Paradox correctly.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.