Re: x true.

Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 06:47:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/6/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-04 12:04:23 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/4/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-03 13:44:25 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/3/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-02 12:19:31 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/2/2024 1:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-31 14:46:17 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/31/2024 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-30 13:40:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/30/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-29 00:44:41 +0000, olcott said:

So what is wrong with Quines opinion that the truth of "A bachelor is
not married" comes from the meaning of the words?
>

If he said that then he would be saying that he has no objection to
the {Analytic/Synthetic} distinction. He is famous for having an
objection to this.

 
What makes you thing he has no objection not involving batchelors to
the analytinc/synthetic distinction?
 

I only skimmed his paper. I don't have to even look at anything that
said besides his conclusion to know that it is wrong.

Maybe you should not reject his brand new invention that nobody else
noticed out-of-hand without review.

It is a tautology to say that expressions of language that are true or
false on the basis of their meaning are established as true of false by
a contiguous sequence of truth preserving operations as truth-makers
between (x or ~x) and the expressions of language that make (x or ~x)
true.
When anyone disagrees with the gist of this they are necessarily
incorrect.

--
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.