Boolean True(L, x) refuting Tarski

On 8/6/2024 7:13 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 8/6/2024 7:47 AM, olcott wrote:

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

 

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

>
I only skimmed his paper.

 To be clear,
"I only skimmed his paper."
is what one says when
one wants people to ignore what comes next.
 Is
"I only skimmed his paper."
a typo, perhaps?
 Maybe you want to go back and read
what you're explaining to everyone?
 [ignored]
 

When I figured out exactly how {analytic} truth is unequivocally
delineated from non {analytic} truth then anyone saying there
is no such clear delineated has been proven to be incorrect:
{Analytic} truth is essentially nothing more than a special
kind of mapping between finite strings.
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer