Re: Why Tarski is wrong

On 3/17/25 8:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/17/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-17 01:50:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.
>
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.

>
By this criterion True("There is no truth predicate") is TRUE.
>

 The True(X) predicate only takes formalized Natural Language so that
would  be rejected as false. LP := ~True(LP) would also be rejected
as ~TRUE. The Principle of explosion does not apply truth preserving
operations.
 

ANd thus you admit that it isn't definable in the logic system that Tarski as looking at, as it wasn't a "Natural Language" logic system.
In part, because such things aren't actually Formal Logic Systems.
All you are doing is proving that you have been lying about working withing the parameters of the logic system described, and likely have no understand of what that actually means.