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

On 3/29/25 7:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 5:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

 Point out one mistake that you have pointed out here by
quoting the time/date stamp with your prior reply.

Like at 6:15 PM today where I said:

>
Note, the langauge can't have the metalanguages derived from it within it. Your claims just shows you don't understand what you are talking about because you are just too ignorant to even try to learn the meanings.

 

Part of the problem is you never actually DEFINE what you are doing but use vague terms.
>

 It would take millions of years of talking in endless circles
(your whole point) of defining the notion of general knowledge
that can be expressed in language, completely.

 It doesn't take a genius to understand that knowledge must be true.

Agreed, but Truth doesn't need to be known, which is your problem.

 A simple list search determines if an expression in the list
of basic facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
inference determines if basic facts can be reached by semantic
logical entailment from X.

Which doesn't work, as there can be an infinite number of possible paths, particularly if the forward path was infinitely long.
And the path to prove that no such path can easily be infinite, so it can fail to answer at all for some falses.
For instance, How would it determine if the Goldbach conjecture is actually True or not?
You just don't understand how logic works, or the limits of computation.

 

Your reply just shows that you ARE that stupid, as you seem to not understand the basic problem you need to define.
>

 How can True(X) be defined such that it only returns TRUE
when X is a basic fact or X can reach basic facts by backward
chained inference?

The problem is that doesn't answer True for things that it needs to, as it can't search the full space, as we hit the infinities.

 How many sides does a four-sided square have?
Heh Richard: What is your first name?
If cats are animals are cats animals?

Just proving your logic devolves into childness when you run out of ideas.
Your problem is you are just proving that you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

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]

>
>
>

>

>
>

>