Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 2/24/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:It usually is syntactically invalid, too.On 2/24/25 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:LP := ~True(LP) is semantically invalid.On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But it doesn't.On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:When any system assumes that every expression is trueOn 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Which has nothing to do with "soundness".On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:That is very good.On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Sure I do.On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:You clearly have no idea what "semantically sound" means.On 2/22/2025 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Really, then where is the error in his derivation?On 2/22/25 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:Not at all. That is the same as saying you knowOn 2/22/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:But his logic follows from the premises.On 2025-02-22 04:44:35 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 2/21/25 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:On 2/20/2025 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-18 03:59:08 +0000, olcott said:It does not matter a whit what the Hell his misconceptionsNo, it can't. Tarski requires that True be a predicate, i.e, a truthIt can be easily handled as ~True(LP) & ~True(~LP), Tarski justTarski anchored his whole proof in the Liar Paradox.By showing that given the necessary prerequisites, The equivalent of the Liar Paradox was a statement that the Truth Predicate had to be able to handle, which it can't.
didn't think it through.
valued function of one term.
required. We simply toss his whole mess out the window and
reformulate a computable Truth predicate that works correctly.
Maybe your logic just can't handle that level of system.
It is all ultimately anchored relations between finiteAnd to do what you want, you have to limit your logic system to not be able to define the full Natural Number system, as that is what allows Tarski to do what he does (like Godel does).
strings even if we must toss all of logical out the window
to do this correctly.
We are answering the question:And, if the logic system can support the properties of the Natural Number system, and a definition of the predicate True, it can be shown that you can create the equivalent of
What are the relationships between arbitrary finite strings
such that the semantic property of True(L, x)
(where L and x are finite strings) can always be correctly
determined for every finite string having a truth value that is
entirely verified by its relation to other finite strings.
Let P be defined as Not( True(L, P))
in that system, and thus P is a semantically valid,
that it is true that all squares are always round.
n
The only correct rebuttal to this is you proving that
you do know this by providing the details of exactly what
"semantically sound" means.
A Systems is semantically sound if every statement that can be proven is actually true by the systems semantics,
in other words, the system doesn't allow the proving of a false statement.That is not too bad yet ignores that some expressions
might not have any truth value.
or false and is capable of encoding expressions that
are neither IT IS STUPIDLY WRONG.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.