Sujet : Re: ""self contradictory"" (Was: Analytic Truth-makers)
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 22. Jul 2024, 22:42:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v7mjnq$qr0g$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/22/2024 3:46 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
And why is there no sequence of
logical transformations that leads to:
p
and no sequence of logical
transformations that leads to:
~p
Is p self contradictory?
You have it backwards.
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
The above is a very clumsy way of saying
that x is only true if x is not true.
We can know this because Tarski said the was using the
Liar Paradox as his model:
It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the
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.
olcott schrieb:
On 7/22/2024 3:18 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>
What do you mean by self contradictory.
Why is there no sequencce to:
>
p
>
or to
>
~p
>
Is p self contradictory?
>
>
This sentence is not true is *self* contradictory.
When it is formalized in Tarski formal system it
becomes the basis for his undefinability theorem.
>
Tarski's Liar Paradox from page 248
It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the 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
>
>
olcott schrieb:
I have focused on analytic truth-makers where an expression of language x is shown to be true in language L by a sequence of truth preserving operations from the semantic meaning of x in L to x in L.
>
In rare cases such as the Goldbach conjecture this may require an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations thus making analytic knowledge a subset of analytic truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>
There are cases where there is no finite or infinite sequence of
truth preserving operations to x or ~x in L because x is self-
contradictory in L. In this case x is not a truth-bearer in L.
>
>
>
>
>
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer