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

On 3/29/25 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 3:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/29/25 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:28:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/28/2025 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/28/25 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2025 5:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:44:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>

The set of all general knowledge that can be expressed in language
is a subset of all truth and only excludes unknown and unknowable.

>

Exactly, it doesn't include the unknown truths and ought to be called
Known(X). It is also contradictory since it gives NO both for
unknowns and their negation.
>

*The key defining aspect of knowledge is that it is true*

One of a sentence and its negation must be true.
>

Which has been the eternal debate, how can we tell if some "fact" we
have discovered is true.
In FORMAL LOGIC (which you just dismissed) truth has a solid
definition, and we can formally PROVE some statements to be true and
formally PROVE that some statements are just false, and thus such
statements CAN become truely established knowledge. There may also be
some statements we have not established yet (and maybe can never
establish in the system) which will remain as "unknown". That doesn't
mean the statements might not be true or false, just that we don't know
the answer yet.
>

This can be incoherent unless complete semantics is fully integrated
into the formal system. There is no way that applying ONLY truth
preserving operations to basic facts can possibly result in
undecidability.
Only a valid concrete counter-example counts as a rebuttal, everything
else counts as some sort of deception.

>

See Gödel 19whenever.
>

>
Does not meet my spec. All math proofs make sure to
always ignore semantics. Not all inference steps
are truth preserving operations.
>
X <is a necessary consequence> of Y.

>
No, you just don't understand what that means, but are too stupid to understand that,
>

 It is not that I am stupid. It has always been
that you are dishonest. If you were not dishonest
you could and would point out specific mistakes.
Since I made no mistakes all that you have left
is calling me stupid.
 

I HAVE been pointing out specific mistakes.
Part of the problem is you never actually DEFINE what you are doing but use vague terms.
Your reply just shows that you ARE that stupid, as you seem to not understand the basic problem you need to define.
Sorry, but until you stop making baseless claim that are just logically imposssible (like a system can include all the knowledge of the infinte nymber of meta-systems that can be derived from it, while still being finite) you are just showing that you are too stupid to understand what you are doing.

>

[LLM bullshit]

>
>
>

>