Re: Why Tarski is wrong

On 3/18/25 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/18/2025 9:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-17 12:54:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
No, if we interprete "There is no truth predicate" to represent the
formalized natural language expression that means that there is no
turth predicate.
>

 That is already accounted for by the Liar Paradox.
Every self-contradictory expression cannot be derived
from the set of basic facts by applying ONLY truth
preserving operations.

But it doesn't handle the fact that Tarski showed that the existance of the Truth Predicate means we can prove that the Liar Paradox statement must be true.

 

LP := ~True(LP) would also be rejected
as ~TRUE. The Principle of explosion does not apply truth preserving
operations.

>
The expression LP := ~True(LP) should be rejected as a syntax error.
>

 Formalized natural language must be able to directly
encode the self-reference of the Liar Paradox
"This sentence is not true" or it is insufficiently
expressive.
 

So, why does your system have problems with it?
Note, just because the language can express the Liar's Paradox, doesn't mean that we can't use a metalanguage to build an expression based on the existance of your truth predicate that proves the liar's paradox must be true as Tarski did.
Your problem is you just don't understand Tarski's logic enough to understand what he did, but you just knee-jerk claim it can't be right, because you can't stand that one of your favorite OPINIONS is proved to be wrong. All you are doing is showing you don't understand how logic works, and are too stupid to see your ignorance.