Re: The key undecidable instance that I know about --- Truth-bearers ONLY

On 3/21/25 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 4:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-21 03:53:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/20/2025 4:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-19 01:36:33 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/18/2025 9:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-17 15:56:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/17/2025 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/17/25 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:

>
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
That does not say: "This sentence is not true"
>
The self-reference is only in the English and not
encoded n the formalism thus cannot be directly
evaluated in the formalism.
>
This does say: LP := ~True(LP)
"This sentence is not true"

>
But that sentence you started with is only in the METALANGUAGE, so your "Formalism" isn't a statement in the LANGUAGE.
>
x is a fully defined expression in the language developed per that earlier proof.
>
So, x doesn't NEED to be "formalized" as it IS formalized.
>
The issue is that the "self-reference" isn't anything expressed in the LANGUAGE, so isn't part of x itself, but is based on properties established in the METALANGUAGE that can be expressed in the language.
>
Sorry, you are just showing that you don't understand what you are talking about.
>

>
There is no counter-example in the set of human general
knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
True(X) does not work correctly...

>
That very much depends on what does "correctly" mean about "True(X)".
>

>
The common meaning of True on the basis of the meaning
of words such as "cats are animals" for all words
and all meanings.

>
Not possible (althogh a partial soultion could be useful).
>

>
The set of all human general knowledge that
can be expressed using language is complete.

>
For some meaning of "complete".
A bigger problem is that it is infinite.
>

The set of human general knowledge that can be expressed
using language is finite and stored in a general knowledge
ontology. Specific situation and discourse context knowledge
ontologies can be defined as needed.
 

Yes, but you have to decide which "facts" are actually facts. For instance, some segments of the population assert that a fact that is in the genereal human knowledge is that Trump won the 2020 election, but it was stolen from him by fraud that was hidden from the public.
Others assert as a fact of general Human Knowledge that there was no significant fraud, and that Biden won fairly.
Neither is actually a logically provable fact, as both are based on a presumption of facts that are not based on pure logic, but claimed observaiton.
This is the problem with "Human Knowledge", it doesn't have a universally agreed upon definition.
This is of course, based on the fact that you don't understand the actual nature of truth and knowledge, but think you do because of your ignorance.
Sorry, all you are doing is proving your ignorance of the topic.