Re: Analytic Expressions of language not linked to their semantic meaning are simply untrue

On 7/29/24 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/28/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/28/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

The truth about every expression of language that can be known
to be true on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
that a lack of connection simply means untrue. The Tarski
Undefinability theorem and the 1931 Gödel incompleteness Theorem
never could understand that.
>
It seems simplistic except when understood to be saying the
same thing as this much more complex analysis. Please take a
quick peek at that paper. It gives me much more credibility.
>
Prolog detects [and rejects] pathological self reference in the Gödel sentence
>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>

>
The problem is that moth "truths" aren't True by just the meaning of their words.
>

 {The truth about every expression of (formal or formalized
natural language) language that can be known to be true
on the basis of its meaning expressed in language}.
 Corrects the analytic / synthetic distinction so that
it is unequivocal thus not subject to Quine's objections.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/analytic-synthetic/

How? The fact that SOME true statement are true by the meaning of their words says nothing about statements that aren't so simple that their word establish their meaning.

 Every truth that can be expressed in language is an analytic
truth, such as "some pediatricians are rich".

Nope. In fact, your example is a synthetic truth as you need to examine the world to determine if the statement is true. There could be a world with no rich pediatricians, perhaps because there are no pediatricians.
In fact, "Analytic Truth" doesn't mean true by the meaning of the words, but a statement that is true based on the rules and assumptions of the system, and independent on the world you are talking about. It can be directly based on the meaning of its words, or derived by an sequence of truth preserving deductions from statements that are true by the meaning of the words (as used in the system, and with consistant meaning).

 Every truth that cannot be expressed in language is a synthetic
truth such as the actual sound of dogs barking.

Nope. The statement "Snow is white" is a synthetic truth, as its truth does not derive SOLEY by the meaning of the words, but needs to look at the attributes of the world.
You are just showing you ignorance of the meaning of the words you are using.

 A lack up connection from an expression to its semantic
meaning within the objects of this language such as PA
simply means untrue in PA.

But, as I showed, there *IS* a semantic meaning within the object of the language PA

 A connection of this same expression in another different
language within the objects of this language such as
meta-math means true in meta-math.
 

But G is shown to have a connection (infinite in length) to the truth makers of PA, and thus to be analytically true in PA. That this proof of this is done in MM, doesn't negate the fact that the proof show the sequence is totally in PA.

This same thing goes for Tarski's analysis of the Liar Paradox.
The formalized version of "This sentence is not true" is not
true in his theory.

Nope, you just don't understand what he is saying, Your stupidity doesn't make his statement incorrect.

 The formalized version of:
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
is true in his metatheory.
 

Your oversimplification just breaks your logic and proves your ignorance.

  The difference between PA and MM is that