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

On 3/23/25 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 7:37 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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

On 3/22/25 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 11:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-22 03:03:39 +0000, olcott said:

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:

>

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

We can believe the "nothing else" part. The rest would require a
proof.

True(X) is a predicate implementing a membership algorithm for the
body of general knowledge that can be expressed using language.

Then it isnt a truth predicate, but a Knowledge predicate, and thus you
are admitting to just being a liar about all you claimed.

It <is> as I have always said that it <is> a True(X) predicate for every
element of the set of general knowledge that can be expressed in
language.

 

And not for true non-elements.
>

 It will know when X is true and ~Y is true
and LP is not true and ~LP is not true.

But it won't, as it won't know if the Goldbach Conjecture is True or False.
The Goldbach Conjecture is clearly a statement expressible in your logic system, as you have even admitted, one of your accepted Truths is that the Goldbach Conjecture must be either True or False.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

That you just can't keep track of this is your mistake not my deception.

Your deception is that you call all unknowns false.
>

 True(X) with a domain of the set of general knowledge that
can be expressed in language works the same way as Prolog.
Can X be derived by applying Prolog Rules to Prolog Facts?

But that isn't the proper domain for a Truth Predicate. It needs to work for all valid sentences in the language, not just the initial sentences defined to be true.
You are just admitting to trying to build a "Dead" Language, one that can't express anything new.

 

It excludes things like what you had for lunch today what a rose smells
like... It includes every word of every textbook every written encoded
in such a way that it fully understands all of these words.

 

It also excludes unknown truths.
>

As any set of knowledge must do.
 

But "Set of Knowlegde" isn't a logic system, as logic systems allow the creation of new sentences that have meaning derived from the logic and the input sentences.
Thus, you are just admitting that you don't understand what you are talking about, as you don't understand the initial problem at all.