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

On 3/22/2025 11:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-21 12:43:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
True(X) always returns TRUE for every element in the set
of general knowledge that can be expressed using language.
It never gets confused by paradoxes.

>
Not useful unless it returns TRUE for no X that contradicts anything
that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>

>
I can't parse that.
 > (a) Not useful unless
 > (b) it returns TRUE for
 > (c) no X that contradicts anything
 > (d) that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.

>
Can you parse "It might be useful if it would return something else that
TRUE for some X, especially if that X contradicts something that can be
inferred from the set of general knowledge." ?
>

 True(X) implements a membership algorithm for elements of the
body of human general knowledge that can be expressed using language.