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

On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:

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:

>

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.
  >
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.
>

No, you system doesn't because you don't actually understand what
you are trying to define.
"Human Knowledge" is full of contradictions and incorrect
statements.
Adittedly, most of them can be resolved by properly putting the
statements into context, but the problem is that for some
statement, the context isn't precisely known or the statement is
known to be an approximation of unknown accuracy, so doesn't
actually specify a "fact".

>
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.
>

SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove something.
>

When the proof is only syntactic then it isn't directly connected to
any meaning.

>
But Formal Logic proofs ARE just "syntactic"

>
>

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.
>

>
The problem is that statement, you don't get to change the meaning of the core terms and stay in the system, so you are just admitting that all your work is based on strawmen, and thus frauds.
>

>
<sarcasm>
   In the exact same way that ZFC totally screwed up
   and never resolved Russell's Paradox because they
   were forbidden to limit how sets are defined.
>
   When the definition of a set allowed pathological
   self-reference they should have construed this
   as infallible and immutable.
</sarcasm>
>

>
IN other words, you admit that you can't refute what I said, so you just go off beat.
>

>
By the freaking concrete example that I provided
YES YOU DO GET TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE TERMS.
The original set theory is now named naive set theory.
>

 No you don't, and your example does say you can.
 ZFC didn't "redefine" set theory,

Then why the Hell is the original set theory now called
naive set theory? Might as well have called it clueless
brain-dead set theory.
The gist of the notion of the set of general knowledge
that can be expressed in language was mostly inconceivable
until Montague Grammar of natural language semantics.
This provides the means for a computer to have actual
understanding of all of these ideas.
A True(X) predicate for a set of knowledge is merely
a membership algorithm for this set. A Tree of knowledge
can be searched in finite time.

 they defined a new set theory, ZFC Set Theory that got adopted by the community,
 Since you are not "the community", you don't get to change the meaning the generic term points to,.
 Since you think you do, you are just showing that you don't fundamentally understand how words get their meaning.
 Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer