Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge (GKEUL)

Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 11:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-22 03:03:39 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:

True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.

We can believe the "nothing else" part. The rest would require a
proof.

True(X) is a predicate implementing a membership algorithm for the
body of general knowledge that can be expressed using language.

Then it isnt a truth predicate, but a Knowledge predicate, and thus you
are admitting to just being a liar about all you claimed.

It <is> as I have always said that it <is> a True(X) predicate for every
element of the set of general knowledge that can be expressed in
language.

And not for true non-elements.

That you just can't keep track of this is your mistake not my deception.

Your deception is that you call all unknowns false.

It excludes things like what you had for lunch today what a rose smells
like... It includes every word of every textbook every written encoded
in such a way that it fully understands all of these words.

It also excludes unknown truths.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.