Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Tarski

On 2/22/25 12:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/22/2025 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-21 23:19:10 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/20/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-18 03:59:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

 

>
Tarski anchored his whole proof in the Liar Paradox.

>
More specifically, to the idea that the Liar Paradox does not have a
truth value. Do you reject that idea?
>

 This was not what Tarski was saying.
Tarski got totally confused by the fact that:
 This sentence is not true: "this sentence is not true"
is true (in his meta-language).

So, which step in the PROOF of that did he make a mistake?

 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/#ObjLanMet
 The above true sentence is true in the meta-language because
it eliminates the pathological self-reference of the inner
sentence. This PSR makes the inner sentence not a truth-bearer.

But it was established by his earlier proof.

 Even the current greatest experts in the field of truth bearer
maximalism do not quite fully get this key point.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#Max
 Part of the issue with them not getting this key point
is that they do not carefully divide empirical truth
from truth on the basis of meaning expressed using language
analytical(Olcott) truth.
 

So, your idea is that all of logic is just broken so nothing makes sense.
Sorry, we prefer to use working logic, understanding that somethings will be unknown to logic that lies to us.
The fact that you prefer logic that lies just shows that you are just a pathologocal liar.