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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : sci.logic
Date : 23. Mar 2025, 03:53:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <bf057d3a516d7614426e0fe0b7073ff7ad1b3d30@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/22/25 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/22/2025 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/22/25 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:
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.
>
>
Then it is Known(x) not True(x).
>
Sorry, you just admitted to your fraud.
 It is pretty stupid to claim that
Knowledge "⊂" Truth is an example of fraud.
No, the FRAUD is claiming that Truth is Knowledge, as that is all your "Truth Predicate" answers about, and thus should be called a Knowledge predicate (but that fails to meet some of the requirements of a predicate, like giving consistant answers, since knowledge isn't a constant set)

 True(X) works perfectly within the body of knowledge
that can be expressed using language.
 
Right, but it needs to work on the full body of Truths that are derivable from the system.
Something you don't seem to understand, because you are just too stupid.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
2 May 26 o  …

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal