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

On 3/29/25 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.

>

>
Good job. That is a reasonable critique. I don't see these things
because I stop at your first mistake. Lets start talking one single
point at a time, that way I will not skip most of what you say.
>
A single language anchored in an inheritance type hierarchy
can specify the meta-theory for the theory at the next level
in the type hierarchy.
>

 Because you did such a good job proving your point that you
did actually have a reasonable critique I humbly apologize for
calling you a liar.
 

So, no you need to prove what you are claiming, or you just prove yourself to be the liar.
You admit my critique is reasonable, so try to refute it, or you whole idea is just fake.