Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 2024-05-19 14:15:51 +0000, olcott said:True(English, "a cat is an animal) is true
On 5/19/2024 9:03 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-05-19 13:41:56 +0000, olcott said:
>On 5/19/2024 6:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/18/2024 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:Yes we must build from mutual agreement, good.On 5/18/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/18/2024 2:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/18/2024 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/18/2024 11:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 5/18/2024 9:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/18/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:>On 5/18/2024 7:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>No, your system contradicts itself.>
>
You have never shown this.
The most you have shown is a lack of understanding of the
Truth Teller Paradox.
No, I have, but you don't understand the proof, it seems because you don't know what a "Truth Predicate" has been defined to be.
>
My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every
finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth
preserving operations that derive x from
And thus, When True(L, p) established a sequence of truth preserving operations eminationg from ~True(L, p) by returning false, it contradicts itself. The problem is that True, in making an answer of false, has asserted that such a sequence exists.
>
> On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
>>
>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p?
> No, so True(L, p) is false
>>
>> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
>> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
>
> No, so False(L, p) is false,
>
>
*To help you concentrate I repeated this*
The Liar Paradox and your formalized Liar Paradox both
contradict themselves that is why they must be screened
out as type mismatch error non-truth-bearers *BEFORE THAT OCCURS*
And the Truth Predicate isn't allowed to "filter" out expressions.
>
YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T
WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN
THE FORMAL SYSTEM USES THE TRUE AND FALSE PREDICATE
TO FILTER OUT TYPE MISMATCH ERROR
>
The first thing that the formal system does with any
arbitrary finite string input is see if it is a Truth-bearer:
Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
No, we can ask True(L, x) for any expression x and get an answer.
>
The system is designed so you can ask this, yet non-truth-bearers
are rejected before True(L, x) is allowed to be called.
>
>
>
Not allowed.
>
My True(L,x) predicate is defined to return true or false for every
finite string x on the basis of the existence of a sequence of truth
preserving operations that derive x from
>
A set of finite string semantic meanings that form an accurate
verbal model of the general knowledge of the actual world that
form a finite set of finite strings that are stipulated to have
the semantic value of Boolean true.
>
*This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
*This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
*This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
*This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
*This is computable* Truthbearer(L,x) ≡ (True(L,x) ∨ True(L,~x))
>
>
So, for a statement x to be false, it says that there must be a sequence of truth perserving operations that derive ~x from, right?
>
>So do you still say that for p defined in L as ~True(L, p) that your definition will say that True(L, p) will return false?>
>
It is the perfectly isomorphic to this:
True(English, "This sentence is not true")
>
>
Nope, Because "This sentece is not true" can be a non-truth-bearer, but by its definition, True(L, x) can not.
>
True(L,x) is always a truth bearer.
when x is defined as True(L,x) then x is not a truth bearer.
When x is defined as True(L,x) then x is what True(L,x) is,
in this case a truth bearer.This is known as the Truth Teller ParadoxDoesn't matter. But ir you say that "x is not a truth bearer" then,
by a truth preserving transformation, you imply that True(L,x) is
not a truth bearer. As you already said that "True(L,x)" is always*Not at all*
a truth bearer, you imply, by another truth preeserving transformation,
that something both is and is not a truth bearer.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.