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

On 4/2/25 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/2/25 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 5:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/2/25 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-01 18:00:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/1/2025 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-31 18:29:32 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/31/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-30 11:20:05 +0000, olcott said:
>
You have never expressed any disagreement with the starting points of
Tarski's proof. You have ever claimed that any of Tarski's inferences
were not truth preserving. But you have claimed that the last one of
these truth preservin transformation has produced a false conclusion.
>

>
It is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE to specify True(X) ∧ ~Provable(X)
(what Tarski proved) when-so-ever True(X) ≡ Provable(X).
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

>
Tarski's proof was not about provability. Gödel had already proved
that there are unprovable true sentences. Tarski's work is about
definability.

>
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
Step (3) is self-contradictory, thus his whole proof fails.

>
Irrelevant. As Traski clearly points out, (3) can be derived from (1) and
(2) with a truth preserving transformation.
>

>
(3) is false, thus his whole proof is dead.
>

>
And if (3) is false, then one of (1) or (2) must be false,

>
(1) is merely a false assumption that stands on its own.

>
No, (1) is the result of a previous proof.
>

>
Prove that. I can prove otherwise. PUT UP OR SHUT UP
>

 The paragraph before that he says:
 

In accordance with the first
part of Th. I we can obtain ...

 That shows that he is building that statement from his previous proof.
 So, prove him wrong or PUT UP OR SHUT UP.