Re: Why Tarski is wrong

On 3/17/25 12:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/25 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>
We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!

That does not disprove Tarski.
>

>
He said that this is impossible and no
counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.
True(GC) == FALSE Cannot be proven true AKA unknown
True(LP) == FALSE Not a truth-bearer
>

>
>
But if x is what you are saying is

>
A True(X) predicate can be defined and Tarski never
showed that it cannot.

>
Sure he did, because he can create an expression x that it can not handle.
>

>
True(X) only returns TRUE when a a sequence of truth
preserving operations can derive X from the set of basic
facts and returns false otherwise.

>
Right, so for the x that is true if and only if True(x) is false that he constructs in the language using properties created in a metalangugage that knows the langugage, What does True(x) return?
>

 True(X) always returns false whenever a sequence of truth preserving
operations cannot derive X from the basic facts of general knowledge.
True(X) only fails on unknown truths.
 

So, you ADMIT that you True(x) doesn't meet the requirements, as it needs to work on ALL statements.
After all, who needs or even want a function that just tells them what they already know?
And that can't be persausive to people who disagree with those truths, as they will object to you having put those pieces of "knowledge" into the system. Part of the issue is that much of human "Knowledge" isn't logically proven facts, but our best guess analysis, and in fact, a lot of the general knowledge is KNOWN to be wrong, because we know it is only our best approximation for now, or even we know a better one, but it is more complicated than we want to use for this situation, so we just use good enough.

If it says FALSE, because there it thinks there is no path to x from a truth maker, then x turns out to be TRUE, and thus we have that True of a shown true statement is false, and thus True is broken.
>
If it says TRUE because of that, then from the relationship shown in the metalanguage, x must be false, and thus True just said a known false statement was true.
>

 There is no need for any separate metalanguage in my system.
 

Of course there is, as you can't axiomize the enumerate of the axioms of a system within the system itself, as that makes the system infinite in the system infinite in size.

>
This never fails on the entire set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language.

>
Because the entire set of human general knowledge isn't a formal logic system, and can't really be made into one.
>

 Richard Montague showed otherwise for the entire set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed in language.

Which doesn't make a logic system.

 

>
It is not fooled by pathological self-reference or
self-contradiction.
>

>
Sure it was, otherwise, what value should it have returned for that True(x)?
>
The problem is that pathology is out of the sight of the predicate, hidden in the unknown metalanguage.
>
The problem is give a sufficently powerful enough logic system (able to express the properties of the Natural Numbers) Tarski shows (with a proof borrowing from Godel in ideas) that we CAN create such a statement in the language, that expresses in the metalanguage (and only knowable in the metalanguage) that pathological relationship.
>
THis just involves logic that is beyound your kindergarten level of knowledge of logic, that you are too stupid to see exists.

 A system that derives the X from True(X) by applying a sequence
a truth preserving operations to basic facts cannot be fooled.
 

Sure it can, as it can't handle statements whose truth comes from an INFINITE sequence of truth preserving operations.
For instance, the statement "No Natural Number satisfies the relationship 'x'" is a statement that might need an infinite number of steps to show, but if there is no such number, it is true.
Sorry, you are just showing your stupidity.