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

On 4/3/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 11:38 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/3/2025 12:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 10:43 PM, dbush wrote:

>
We don't have to.  It was scrutinized by many experts for decades.
>
The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it is wrong.

>
Appeal to authority is an error.
Tarski says that he does not derive (1)
by applying truth preserving operations.
>

>
LIAR:
>
On 4/2/2025 11:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > 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.

 <DIRECT QUOTE>
THEOREM I. (α) In whatever way the symbol 'Tr', denoting a
class of expressions, is defined in the metatheory, it will be possible
to derive from it the negation of one of the sentences which were
described in the condition (α) of the convention T;
 (β) assuming that the class of all provable sentences of the metatheory
is consistent, it is impossible to construct an adequate
definition of truth in the sense of convention T on the basis of the
metatheory. ...
 Should we succeed in constructing in the metalanguage
a correct definition of truth, then ...
 It would
then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy of the liar in the
metalanguage, by forming in the language itself a sentence x
such that the sentence of the metalanguage which is correlated
with x asserts that x is not a true sentence.
</DIRECT QUOTE>
 https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
  

So, what is the ERROR?
I guess you need to SHUT UP.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you are just a ignorant and stupid pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Note, he is just giving the rough sketch of the proof here, as he mentions in the footnote:
I take this opportunity of mentioning that Th. I and the sketch of its
proof was only added to the present work after it had already gone to press.
Note, he calls it a "sketch", as he is presuming the reader has read Godel and understands his proof which he heavily leans on.
Godel has proved that we CAN construct in the meta-language the antimony of the liar, so if that is what you are going to complain about, show the error in Godel.