Re: The Tarski Undefinability Theorem failed to understand truthmaker theory, because Olcott doesn't undestand

On 7/2/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:

Every {analytic} proposition X having a truth-maker is true.
Every {analytic} proposition X having a truth-maker for ~X is false.
Those expressions of language left over are not not truth bearers.

>
And the "truth-maker" in a formal system needs to be from the formal system itself, unless the proposition IS a truth-maker itself of the formal system.
>

 Yes.
 

Also, most propositions actually need MULTIPLE truth-makers to make them true.
>

 Yes.
 

>
True(L,x) and False(L,x) where L is the language and x is the
expression of that language rejects self-contradictory undecidable
propositions as not truth-bearers.

>
So, what is the value of:
>
True(L,x) where x, in language L is the statement "not True(L,x)"
>

It is that as I have always been saying, that x is not a truth bearer.

And so True(L, x) must be false, and thus we are saying that x, which is defined to "not True(L, x)" must be true, so not only are you wrong about it not being a truth bearer, you are wrong about not being true.
Or, does your logic say that "not false" as a logical expresion isn't true? and thus your logic fails to hold to the rule of the excluded middle?

 

Or is your True(L,x) not a predicate that always gives an True or False answer? (which is the requirement that Tarski has)
>

 As I have always been saying X is true, or false or not a truth bearer.
"a fish" is not a truth bearer.

And "True(L, x)" needs to return True if x is True, and False if x is False, or not a truth bearer.
So, since x defined as "not True(L,x)" is True if True(L, x) says no, then True failed to live up to its requirements.
And you show you are unable to understand what requirements are.

 

>
Only expressions of language requiring an infinite number of steps
such as Goldbach's conjecture slip through the cracks. These can
be separately recognized.

>
How?
>

 We ourselves can see that it can be proven in an infinite
sequence of steps thus an algorithm can see this too.

So, you think the Goldbach's conjecture IS true? Show your proof and win the prize,

 

Why do they need a seperate rule?
>

It is the only thing that does not fit perfectly in truth-maker theory.

But there are MANY such statements, so you are just admitting that your theory is just full of holes.

 

>
{Analytic} propositions are expressions of formal or natural language
that are linked by a sequence of truth preserving operations to the
verbal meanings that make them true or false. This includes expressions
of language that form the accurate verbal model of the actual world.

>
But that isn't correct for formal systems. so you just wrote yourself out of the problems.
>

It is correct in the correct notion of formal systems.

No, it isn't the case that the VERBAL meanings have anything to do with it.
It is the FORMAL meanings, defined in the system that define it.
And Infinite Chains genrate semantic truth.
Also, just because something is true in a "verbal model" of the world doesn't make it true in a given formal system.

 

Formal systems are NOT based on "Natural Language" but ONLY their own Formal Language, and need not have any direct bearing on the "actual world", but tend to create there own world, which may be used as a way to modle ideas about our actual world, or maybe not.
>

 I already included that. By tacking on that it can
be in natural or formal language and include an accurate
model of the actual world Quine's objections that there
is no separately identifiable body of {analytic truth}
are overcome.

But formal systems do not need to be "accurate models of the actual world", and what Quine was pointing out was that natural language is inherently a bad model as words can have too many different meanings.

 

>
Modern day philosophers at best only have a vague understanding
of what a truth-maker or truth-bearer is.

>
Which is one reason to try to stay out of that realm, and stay in the formal systems without that problem.
>

 That most everyone else is ignorant is no excuse for
me to not make these things clear.

Then go in and get out of Formal systems. The rules are different, and what works in one place doesn't necessarily work in the other.

 

>
Truthmakers
This much is agreed: “x makes it true that p” is a construction that signifies, if it signifies anything at all, a relation borne to a truth-bearer by something else, a truth-maker. But it isn’t generally agreed what that something else might be, or what truth-bearers are, or what the character might be of the relationship that holds, if it does, between them, or even whether such a relationship ever does hold. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
>

>
So, it seems that part of your problem is that you don't understand that Tarski is talking PURELY in Formal Systems, with the rules there-in, and not your vague philospoplical systems.
>

 I take his scope and broaden it.
Within his narrow scope and my foundation of analytical truth
When X not provable or refutable from axioms merely means X is
not a truth-bearer in L.

Nope, that is a LIE, and shows your ignorance, and that your foundation of anaklytc truth just can't handle the logic.
You just admitted that there were statements you "truth-maker" logic can't handle, because they need infinite steps.
So, now it seems you are saying that there are statements with actual truth value of true or false that are not "truth-bearers", in other words, you are admitting you definition is a self-contradiction.

 Haskell Curry presents an equivalent idea.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
 I have always known this for the whole two decades that I have
been working on this yet only now have all of the words to say it.

You mean you have MISUNDERSTOOD It for two decades.

 

In Formal systems, there is no question about "Truth Makers" as Truth in a formal system is (generally) DEFINED as having a finite or infinite chain of semantic connections (Your truth preserving operations, which are defined in the system) from the pre-defined list of fundamental truths of the system (Your Truthmakers).
>

 Not quite. Some of the operations are not truth preserving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
In software engineering that would be called a kludge.

You have shown that you don't understand logic well enough to understand that.
What step in the demonstration of the principle of explosion is NOT a "truth-preserving" operation.
Remember, the whole premise of the demonstartion is that it has already been established in the system that there exist a given contrdiction, that both X and ~X are both true.

 

The fundamental truths of the system have nothing making them true, except the system itself defining them as such.

 Kittens are baby cats and not fifteen story office building ONLY
by translating the accurate model of the actual world into the
arbitrary conventions of English.
 

Which has nothing to do with "Formal Systems", you are just demonstrating you total lack of understanding of them.
You have admitted that much by claiming something must be true based on a given type of proof, which you than admit you don't know of the proof, but that that type of proof is just nonsense.
That is the behavior of a two year old. If he first wants it, and kicks and screams for it, and then realizes he will not get it, decides it must by yucky and he never wanted it in the first place.
Your "logic" makes about as much sense as that, namely it IS nonsense.