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

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:

 

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.

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.