Sujet : Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 23. Mar 2025, 16:24:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <cd20e0d9005a654e445500e64917832f34de1f6e@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:15:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 3/22/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:07:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
It is pretty stupid to claim that Knowledge "⊂" Truth is an example of
fraud.
True(X) works perfectly within the body of knowledge that can be
expressed using language.
But not for unknown truths.
Is it really that hard to understand that knowledge does not include
unknowns?
No, but unknowns are still true.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.