Re: True on the basis of meaning --- Good job Richard ! ---Socratic method

On 5/16/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) is BY DEFINITION a truth bearer, as True must return a Truth Value for all inputs, and ~ a truth valus is always the other truth value.
>

>
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive p?

>
On 5/15/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Which has NOTHING to do with the problem with True(L, p)
 > being true when p is defined in L as ~True(L, p)
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*

>
No, I said that because there is not path to p, it would need to be false, but that was based on the assumption that it could exist.
>

>
No, so True(L, p) is false
and thus ~True(L, p) is true.
>

>
Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied to expressions
that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?

>

>
On 5/15/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > Which has NOTHING to do with the above,
 > as we never refered to False(L,p).
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*

>
Right, but that has nothing to do with the problem with True(L, p) being false, because, since p in L is ~True(L, p) so that make True(L, ~false) which is True(L, true) false, which is incorrrect.
>

>
No, so False(L, p) is false,
>

>
Please try and keep these two thoughts together at the same time
*I need to make another point that depends on both of them*
>
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT True(L, p) IS FALSE*
*YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT false(L, p) IS FALSE*
>
>

>
right, by your definitions, True(L, p) is False, but that means that True(L, true) is false, so your system is broken.
>

>
You understand that True(English, "a fish") is false
and you understand that False(English, "a fish") is false
and you understand this means that "a fish" is neither True
nor false in English.
>
You understand that the actual Liar Paradox is neither true
nor false *THIS IS MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE: Good Job*
>
  True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
Is saying the same thing that you already know.
>
You get stuck when we formalize: "This sentence is not true"
as "p defined as ~True(L, p)", yet the formalized sentence has
the exact same semantics as the English one.
>

>
No, YOU get stuck when you can't figure out how to make True(L, p) with p defined in L as ~True(L, p) work.

>
*You got overwhelmed with that so we have to break it down to*
*smaller steps to see exactly where our mutual agreement diverged*

>
No,
>

>
Do you understand and agree with this?
    True(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
    False(English, "This sentence is not true") is false
    *Is saying the same thing that you already agreed to*
>

>
Just more of your off topic red herring.
>
You don't need to repeat what has been agreed to, that is just a delaying tactic because you are stumped.

 The Socratic method begins with mutual agreement and then makes
incremental steps that maintain this mutual agreement. I am taking
what you said is that you do agree with the above.

And I have answered that question and gave you back one that you faild to answer, so you have failed the test of the Socratic method.

 The English Liar Paradox that you agree with it isomorphic to the
formalized Liar Paradox: "p defined as ~True(L, p)"

No, there is an essential difference that you just don't understand, the True predicate MUST be a Truth Bearer, BY DEFINITIOIN, while "just a statement" has the option to be a non-truth-bearer.

 *You agreed that it is neither True nor False too*

I agreed the Liar is neither True nor False, I didn't agree that the statement based on the True predicat wasn't, as that is NOT a possiblity, except by the statement not existing because the Truth Predicate doesn't exist.

 When you are disagreeing with yourself and I ask what's up with that?
this is not a delaying tactic, it is an preventing jumping to false
conclusions tactic.

Nope, I didn't disagree with myself, you are just showing yourself to stupid to understand what I am saying.

 On 5/13/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/13/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>
 >>> Remember, p defined as ~True(L, p) ...
 >>
 >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
 >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive p?
 > No, so True(L, p) is false
 >>
 >> Can a sequence of true preserving operations applied
 >> to expressions that are stipulated to be true derive ~p?
 >
 > No, so False(L, p) is false,
 >
 When "p defined as ~True(L, p)" then you agreed
"True(L, p) is false" and "False(L, p) is false"
proving that p is not a truth bearer.
 

BY YOUR DEFINIITION of truth, P defined as ~True(:, p) must be false, since it doesn't connect from truth bearers with truth perservving functions. BUT once that is established, then since True(L, p) is false, the p, which is ~True(L, p) which is the same as ~false, which is true, so your system has just blown itself up with a contradiction.
THAT is the problem, once we show that True(L, p) is false, then we can show that it must also be true, as we DO have a path, by the rule that the non-existance of a path makeing it false.
So, all you have done is shown that your defintion of truth, plus the instance that the Truth Predicate exists, makes you logoic system all blown up to contradictory smitherines.