Sujet : Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method (agreement)
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theoryDate : 23. May 2024, 03:07:48
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v2m4t5$1e458$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/22/2024 6:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/22/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF
AN ACTUAL SEQUENCE OF TRUTH PRESERVING OPERATIONS FROM
EXPRESSIONS OF LANGUAGE KNOWN TO BE TRUE
>
So, you aren't talking about Tarski's proof of the impossibility to define a Truth Predicate per his definition?
>
The definition should be ‘materially adequate’ (trafny – a better
translation would be ‘accurate’). This means that the objects satisfying
ϕ should be exactly the objects that we would intuitively count as being
true sentences of L, and that this fact should be provable from the
axioms of the metalanguage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truthMy system does not allow two different levels of L where one can be confused into thinking that True(L,LP) is false makes True(M,LP) true.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdfLP := ~True(L, LP)
True(L,LP) is false.
True(L,~LP) is false.
~True(L,LP) is true.
~True(L,~LP) is true.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer