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

On 4/3/2025 2:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-02 15:59:47 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/2/2025 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-01 17:51:29 +0000, olcott said:
 

 All we have to do is make a C program that does this
with pairs of finite strings then it becomes self-evidently
correct needing no proof.

 There already are programs that check proofs. But you can make your own
if you think the logic used by the existing ones is not correct.
 If the your logic system is sufficiently weak there may also be a way to
make a C program that can construct the proof or determine that there is
none.

 When we define a system that cannot possibly be inconsistent
then a proof of consistency not needed.

 But a proof of paraconsistency is required.

 When it is stipulated that {cats} <are> {Animals}
When it is stipulated that {Animals} <are> {Living Things}
Then the complete proof of those is their stipulation.
AND {Cats} <are> {Living Things} is semantically entailed.