Re: I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases with mt new notion of {linguistic truth}

On 9/9/24 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/9/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-08 13:24:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/8/2024 4:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:54:47 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/7/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-06 11:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/6/2024 5:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 12:58:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:03:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/3/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 13:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-01 03:04:43 +0000, olcott said:
>

*I just fixed the loophole of the Gettier cases*
>
knowledge is a justified true belief such that the
justification is sufficient reason to accept the
truth of the belief.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

>
The remaining loophole is the lack of an exact definition
of "sufficient reason".
>

>
Ultimately sufficient reason is correct semantic
entailment from verified facts.

>
The problem is "verified" facts: what is sufficient verification?
>

>
Stipulated to be true is always sufficient:
Cats are a know if animal.

>
Insufficient for practtical purposes. You may stipulate that
nitroglycerine is not poison but it can kill you anyway.
>

>
The point is that <is> the way the linguistic truth actually works.

>
I've never seen or heard any linguist say so. The term has been used
by DG Schwartz in 1985.
>

>
This is similar to the analytic/synthetic distinction
yet unequivocal.
>
I am redefining the term analytic truth to have a
similar definition and calling this {linguistic truth}.
>
Expression of X of language L is proved true entirely
based on its meaning expressed in language L. Empirical
truth requires sense data from the sense organs to be
verified as true.

>
Seems that you don't know about any linguist that has used the term.
>

>
I INVENTED A BRAND NEW FREAKING TERM

>
Is it really a new term if someone else (DG Schwartz) has used it before?
Is it a term for a new concept or a new term for an old concept?
>

>
A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a
new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning
for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

>
A stipulative definition is a temporary hack when it is not clear
what the definition should be or when a need for a good definitino
is not expected. A stipluative definition is not valid outside the
opus or discussion where it is presented.
>

*LINGUISTIC TRUTH IS STIPULATED TO MEAN*
When expression X of language L is connected to its semantic
meaning M by a sequence of truth preserving operations P in
language L then and only then is X true in L. That was the
True(L,X) that Tarski "proved" cannot possibly exist.
Copyright 2024 Olcott

>
With that definition Tarski proved that linguistic truth is not
identifiable.
>

 No he did not. Tarski's proof that begins with the Liar Paradox
gets rejected at step (3).

Nope, the proof began earlier, where he shows that

 Tarski's Liar Paradox from page 248
    It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar

Read what he says, the following is a CONCLUSION of the previous work he just did, stuff apperently you don't understand so your eyes just glazed over them. Of course, starting in the middle means you lose the context of what is done. That means calling it "an assumption" just makes you into a stupid liar, as it wasn't "assumped" it was proven.
Of course, since you consider the stuff you assume to be proven, it just shows how utterly hypocritical you are, and that you are just a pathological liar.

    in the metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence
    x such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
    with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
 Formalized as:
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
 adapted to become this
x ∉ Pr if and only if p  // line 1 of the proof
 Here is the Tarski Undefinability Theorem proof
(1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p       // assumption (see above)

WRONG, PROVEN from his previous work. Calling it an "assuption" just proves you are an ignorant liar.

(2) x ∈ True if and only if p              // Tarski's convention T
(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // (1) and (2) combined
(4) either x ∉ True or x̄ ∉ True;      // axiom: ~True(x) ∨ ~True(~x)
(5) if x ∈ Provable, then x ∈ True;  // axiom: Provable(x) → True(x)
(6) if x̄ ∈ Provable, then x̄ ∈ True;  // axiom: Provable(~x) → True(~x)
(7) x ∈ True
(8) x ∉ Provable
(9) x̄ ∉ Provable