Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology providing situational context.

On 3/20/25 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/19/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/19/25 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/18/2025 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/18/25 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/18/2025 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-17 15:40:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/16/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>
We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.
>

>
He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.
True(GC) == FALSE Cannot be proven true AKA unknown
True(LP) == FALSE Not a truth-bearer
>

>
>
But if x is what you are saying is

>
A True(X) predicate can be defined and Tarski never
showed that it cannot.

>
Sure he did. Using a mathematical system like Godel, we can construct a statement x, which is only true it is the case that True(x) is false, but this interperetation can only be seen in the metalanguage created from the language in the proof, similar to Godel meta that generates the proof testing relationship that shows that G can only be true if it can not be proven as the existance of a number to make it false, becomes a proof that the statement is true and thus creates a contradiction in the system.
>
That you can't understand that, or get confused by what is in the language, which your True predicate can look at, and in the metalanguage, which it can not, but still you make bold statements that you can not prove, and have been pointed out to be wrong, just shows how stupid you are.
>

>
True(X) only returns TRUE when a a sequence of truth
preserving operations can derive X from the set of basic
facts and returns false otherwise.

>
Right, but needs to do so even if the path to x is infinite in length.
>

>
This never fails on the entire set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language.

>
But that isn't a logic system, so you are just proving your stupidity.
>
Note, "The Entire set of Human General Knowledge" does not contain the contents of Meta-systems like Tarski uses, as there are an infinite number of them possible, and thus to even try to express them all requires an infinite number of axioms, and thus your system fails to meet the requirements. Once you don't have the meta- systems, Tarski proof can create a metasystem, that you system doesn't know about, which creates the problem statement.
>

>
It is not fooled by pathological self-reference or
self-contradiction.
>

>
Of course it is, because it can't detect all forms of such references.
>
And, even if it does detect it, what answer does True(x) produce when we have designed (via a metalanguage) that the statement x in the language will be true if and only if !True(x), which he showed can be done in ANY system with sufficient power, which your universal system must have.
>
Sorry, you are just showing how little you understand what you are talking about.

>
We need no metalanguage. A single formalized natural
language can express its own semantics as connections
between expressions of this same language.

>
A nice formal language has the symbols and syntax of the first order logic
with equivalence and the following additional symbols:

>
I am not talking about a trivially simple formal
language. I am talking about very significant
extensions to something like Montague grammar.
>
The language must be expressive enough to fully
encode any and all details of each element of the
entire body of human general knowledge that can
be expressed using language. Davidson semantics
provides another encoding.
>

>
But "encoding" knowledge, isn't a logic system.

Unless you bother to pay attention to the details
of how this of encoded.

>
But "Encoded Knowledge" isn't a logic system. PERIOD. BYU DEFINITION. That would just be a set of axioms. Note, Logic system must also have a set of rules of relationships and how to manipulate them,

 Yes stupid I already specified those 150 times.
TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS.
 

and that needs more that just expressing them as knowledge.
>

 NOT AT ALL DUMB BUNNY, for all the expressions
that are proved completely true entirely on the basis of
their meaning expressed in language they only need a
connection this semantic meaning to prove that they
are true.
 

>

>
Part of the problem is that most of what we call "Human Knowledge" isn't logically defined truth, but is just "Emperical Knowledge", for which we

>
The set of human knowledge that can be expressed
in language provides the means to compute True(X).

>
Of course not, as then True(x) just can't handle a statement whose truth is currently unknown, which it MUST be able to handle
>

 It employs the same algorithm as Prolog:
Can X be proven on the basis of Facts?

And thus you just admitted that your system doesn't even QUALIFY to be the system that Tarski is talking about.
You don't seem to understand that fact, because apparently you can't actually understand any logic system more coplicated than what Prolog can handle.

 

>
The actual smell of a rose cannot be expressed using
language.

>
Maybe, depends on your definitions. Of course, part of the problem is that the "smell of a rose" is actually a subject thing, so not directly related to knowledge. Of course that concept blows apart large parts of

 NO STUPID IT DOES NOT. PLEASE QUIT BEING A MORON.
WHEN I TELL YOU SOMETHING FIFTY TIMES YOU SHOULD
NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT LEAST ONCE.

And the fact you says something is supposed to mean something, since you are an admitted liar?

 

your theory. Much of what is commonly called "Human Knowledge" isn't actually knowledge, but subjective opinions that have been agreed by the

 NO STUPID BASIC FACTS ARE NOT ANY SORT OF OPINION.

But much of what is called "knowledge" is.
ANYTHING based on observations is ultimately "opinion".
Even things like the Law of Gravity, are just the agreed upon opinion that it best represents our observations, as can be seen by the fact that when you move into a science that supports General Relativity, the "Law of Gravity" changes.
And anything based on the assigning of "names" (like categories) to thing is just the agreement of a shared opinion.
That is the problem of trying to incorporate ALL knowledge into one system, it becomes contradictory.
In fact, even your statement that defines True as the set of things know to be true leads to a contradiction.
For example, it is a part of Human Knowledge that Collatz Conjecture must be either true or false, as it falls in a logic field that obeys the law of the excluded middle.
But, in your system, Collatz Conjecture can neither be True or False, as it has not yet been proven one way or the other, and thus the statement can not be in either the set of True statement of False statement.
Thus, it is known to be in the union of the two sets, but can not be in either of them (until the conjecture is resolved).
Basically, you logic system can't handle the unknown, and thus can be used to discover the unknown, and thus is mostly worthless.

 

majority, and thus not actually something that can be handled by objective logic.
>

>

know it isn't totally accurate (as all measurements have error) or is actually just an approximation for what reality actually is.
>

To address the objection to these forms of encoding
that they ignore the important source of meaning
of linguistics pragmatics context, what I am proposing
also includes a situation specific knowledge ontology
that directly encode the full context of the specific
situation.

>
And a listing of "facts" (which mostly are not facts) isn't a logic system.
>
Sorry, but you are just demonstrating that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.
>

>
You simply did not bother to pay any attention to any details.
We simply formalize the entire body of human general knowledge
as one gigantic tree of knowledge semantic tautology using
Montague Grammar and knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.

>
Which isn't a logic system, BY DEFINITION, it is a knowledge ontology.
>

 A KNOWLEDGE ONTOLOGY IS A SPECIFIC KIND OF LOGIC
SYSTEM WHERE SEMANTIC INFERENCE IS DONE ON THE
BASIS OF INHERITANCE.

No, a Knowledge Ontology is just a formal description of "Knowledge". It doesn't provide any rules of logic itself.
You are just showing you don't understand the terms you are using.

 

>
If those are all words that you do not understand that does
not mean that I am wrong.
>
>

>
Of course it does, since apparently you don't understand what LOGIC actually is.