Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge ---WHY DO THIS?

On 3/22/25 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 11:04 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 10:13:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/22/2025 5:11 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

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:

>

Because my system begins with basic facts and actual facts can't
contradict each other and no contradiction can be formed by
applying only truth preserving operations to these basic facts
there are no contradictions in the system.

>

The liar sentence is contradictory.

^
>

It is self evidence that for every element of the set of human
knowledge that can be expressed using language that undecidability
cannot possibly exist.

>

Not self-evident was Gödel's disproof of that.

^
>

When the body of human general knowledge has all of its semantics
encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of Semantics then a proof
means validation of truth.

Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not need to be
able to be validated.

True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.

Not if X is unknown (but still true).

You must pay complete attention to ALL of my words or you get the
meaning that I specify incorrectly.

>

Try explaining differently, then. What does your supposed truth predicate
say about unknown truths?
>

>
The body of human general knowledge that can be expressed
using language contains zero unknown truths.

>
But from them, we can express unknown truths.
>

 When we can express all known truths then we can
give LLM systems the basis to get on social media
and make all those asserting dangerous lies look
ridiculously foolish even to themselves.

LLMs are not "Truth Perseving" operations. PERIOD.

 We also have real time fact checking for politicians.
Not only will these systems be able to reject false
statements they will be able to instantly prove how
they know they are false.
 

Nope, As pointed out the sum of all "Human Knowledge" is not a truth based logic system, but is full of inconsistencies.
Your first problem would be getting the people you are trying to "fact check" to admit that you initial knowledge base was correct, as most of it was actually based on opinions. Yes, what is the generally accepted beleifs, but the people you are trying to persuade, don't accept those beliefs, so won't believe your results.
Your problem is you just don't understand the nature of the problem, because your thinking is just too stupid and immature.