Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge

On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:

It is stipulated that analytic knowledge is limited to the
set of knowledge that can be expressed using language or
derived by applying truth preserving operations to elements
of this set.

Which just means that you have stipulated yourself out of all classical logic, since Truth is different than Knowledge. In a good logic system, Knowledge will be a subset of Truth, but you have defined that in your system, Truth is a subset of Knowledge, so you have it backwards.
In fact, your definition impllies a possibility that there may be some Knowledge that isn't True, depending on how you parse your definition.

 When we begin with a set of basic facts and all inference
is limited to applying truth preserving operations to
elements of this set then a True(X) predicate cannot possibly
be thwarted.
 

Only because you have defined Truth to be limited to knowledge, and thus made your "Logic System" worthless, as it can be used to find out something new.
This has always been your problem, you confuse the concept of actual Truth, with includes statements which might not be know, or can even be unknowable, with the limited concept of what is known.
Note, in REAL logic systems, Truth can be established via infinite length chains of reasoning steps, while knowledge requires a finite chain (since we are finite, we can't 'know' something only learnable via an infinite path).
Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you actually are.