The Tarski Undefinability Theorem failed to understand truthmaker theory

Every {analytic} proposition X having a truth-maker is true.
Every {analytic} proposition X having a truth-maker for ~X is false.
Those expressions of language left over are not not truth bearers.
True(L,x) and False(L,x) where L is the language and x is the
expression of that language rejects self-contradictory undecidable
propositions as not truth-bearers.
Only expressions of language requiring an infinite number of steps
such as Goldbach's conjecture slip through the cracks. These can
be separately recognized.
{Analytic} propositions are expressions of formal or natural language
that are linked by a sequence of truth preserving operations to the
verbal meanings that make them true or false. This includes expressions
of language that form the accurate verbal model of the actual world.
Modern day philosophers at best only have a vague understanding
of what a truth-maker or truth-bearer is.
Truthmakers
This much is agreed: “x makes it true that p” is a construction that signifies, if it signifies anything at all, a relation borne to a truth-bearer by something else, a truth-maker. But it isn’t generally agreed what that something else might be, or what truth-bearers are, or what the character might be of the relationship that holds, if it does, between them, or even whether such a relationship ever does hold. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer