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

On 3/25/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2025 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/25 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-23 04:24:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
No, you can't. The nearest you can is to create a new term that
is homonymous to an old one. But you can't use two homonymous
terms in the same opus.
>

>
Original set theory became "naive set theory".
ZFC set theory corrected its shortcomings.

>
>

>
GKEUL provides the means for a True(X) predicate
to be defined for this entire domain of knowledge.
It cannot be fooled by silly self-contradictory
expressions.
>

>
But then your "True(x)" isn't a "Truth Predicate" but a "Knowledge Predicate" so your system is just defined to be based on a lie, as Truth and Knowledge are different things.
>

 It <is> a truth predicate for the domain of knowledge that
can be expressed using language.

No, because a "set of knowledge" isn't a logic system, so can't have predicates. Add the ability to do logic on your set, and your "truth predicate" no longer detects truth, but asks if the input is an axiom of the system, or perhaps was it known when the system was created.
That is NOT a truth predicate, and just shows how stupid you are to claim it.

 It inherently has no undecidability because it is anchored
in notions such as Wittgenstein's rebuke of Gödel / Prolog's Rules applied to Facts. https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

Which have been proven to be just wrong.

 This has always been my same idea when I anchor this idea
in the domain of knowledge that can be expressed in language
then this idea becomes self-evidently correct.
 

Which just shows your stupidity, as knowledge isn't the same as truth.
And even the ancient philosophers understood that not everything we know is necessarily correct, as we can be mistaken.
And we can't build a system on what <is> correct, because we don't know what of our knowledge meets that requirement, only what we think is correct. We could but a system on statements logically proven from given axioms, but that is a snall subset of what we think of as knowledge, and that admits that more can be known, and thus being in the initial set isn't a valid test of truth.

 

Something it seems you do not understand due to your ignorance and stupidity.
>

 If I  actually was ignorant you could point out
specific gaps in my reasoning. Since there are
no gaps on my side you can't do this.

I have, and you can't see them because you ARE that ignorant,

 You know that I am not stupid and I know that you
are not stupid.
 

But you are mistaken in that. And, that statement shows a contradiction in your system. IF I am not stupid, then what I know to be correct must have a basis in truth, and since I can prove you are that stupid, you must be, but you think you are not.
The problem is stupid can be so stupid it can't see its own stupidity, and just refuses to look at the evidence (like you refuse to look).
You are just proving that you are that stupid.