It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single aspect of
logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the rest of
it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and Tarski are
incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism

tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
is thus purely a matter of definition.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all expressions
of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
always definable.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single aspect of
> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the rest of
> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and Tarski are
> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>
> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
> is thus purely a matter of definition.
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>
> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all expressions
> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
> always definable.
>
>

So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what "Analytic
Truth" is.

Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition" of a
Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms. You are
making you classic error of not understanding the context of the
statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need to be
consistent in which ones you use.

A more formal definition within logic is:

a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in (which
doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the statement that
"All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.

For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition, an
"Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be declared
"Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might discover (or be
discovered by) an alian race that meets that definition.

The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic, so
doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.

Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so your
statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth)"
is just a false statement. Many statement are Analytically True because
they follow from known statements.

For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in our
current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can then say
that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred has an American
Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology", because it isn't
true in other models.

Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where we can
show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically True Statement.

The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a tautology (at
least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is BY NECESSITY true.

Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say

having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
(sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)

Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a FINITE
number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic system which don't
require that, but the problems you reference are specified to be in the
standard logic systems.

On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single aspect of
>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the rest of
>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and Tarski are
>> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>
>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>
>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all expressions
>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
>> always definable.
>>
>>
>
> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what "Analytic
> Truth" is.
>
> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition" of a
> Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms. You are
> making you classic error of not understanding the context of the
> statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need to be
> consistent in which ones you use.
>
> A more formal definition within logic is:
>
> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
>
> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in (which
> doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the statement that
> "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>
> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
> Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition, an
> "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be declared
> "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might discover (or be
> discovered by) an alian race that meets that definition.
>
> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic, so
> doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>
> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so your
> statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth)"
> is just a false statement. Many statement are Analytically True because
> they follow from known statements.
>
> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
> American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in our
> current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can then say
> that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred has an American
> Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology", because it isn't
> true in other models.
>

You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.

> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where we can
> show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically True Statement.
>
> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a tautology (at
> least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is BY NECESSITY true.
>
>
> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>
> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>
> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a FINITE
> number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic system which don't
> require that, but the problems you reference are specified to be in the
> standard logic systems.
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single aspect of
>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the rest of
>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and Tarski are
>>> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>
>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>
>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all expressions
>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
>>> always definable.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what "Analytic
>> Truth" is.
>>
>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition" of a
>> Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms. You are
>> making you classic error of not understanding the context of the
>> statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need to
>> be consistent in which ones you use.
>>
>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>
>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
>>
>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in (which
>> doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the statement that
>> "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>
>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
>> Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition, an
>> "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be declared
>> "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might discover (or be
>> discovered by) an alian race that meets that definition.
>>
>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic, so
>> doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>
>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so your
>> statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic
>> truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are Analytically
>> True because they follow from known statements.
>>
>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
>> American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in our
>> current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can then say
>> that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred has an
>> American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology",
>> because it isn't true in other models.
>>
>
> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.

Why? What is the ERROR?

Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are talking
about and actually have no rebuttal.

Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.

You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are known to
man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually works, and you are
too stupid to realize that.

>
>> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where we
>> can show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically True
>> Statement.
>>
>> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a tautology
>> (at least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is BY NECESSITY
>> true.
>>
>>
>> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>>
>> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
>> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>>
>> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a FINITE
>> number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic system which
>> don't require that, but the problems you reference are specified to be
>> in the standard logic systems.
>>
>

On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single aspect of
>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the rest of
>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and Tarski are
>>>> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>
>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts
>>>> noted
>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>
>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all expressions
>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
>>>> always definable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what "Analytic
>>> Truth" is.
>>>
>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition" of a
>>> Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms. You are
>>> making you classic error of not understanding the context of the
>>> statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need to
>>> be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>
>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>
>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
>>>
>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in (which
>>> doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the statement
>>> that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>
>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
>>> Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition, an
>>> "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be declared
>>> "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might discover (or be
>>> discovered by) an alian race that meets that definition.
>>>
>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic, so
>>> doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>
>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so your
>>> statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic
>>> truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are Analytically
>>> True because they follow from known statements.
>>>
>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
>>> American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in our
>>> current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can then
>>> say that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred has an
>>> American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology",
>>> because it isn't true in other models.
>>>
>>
>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>
> Why? What is the ERROR?
>
> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are talking
> about and actually have no rebuttal.
>

This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
understanding of any sort of philosophy.

A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
is stipulated to be true.

> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>
> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are known to
> man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually works, and you are
> too stupid to realize that.
>

The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a bunch
of rules is it the philosophy of logic.

>>
>>> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where we
>>> can show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically True
>>> Statement.
>>>
>>> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a tautology
>>> (at least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is BY NECESSITY
>>> true.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>>>
>>> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
>>> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>>>
>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a
>>> FINITE number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic system
>>> which don't require that, but the problems you reference are
>>> specified to be in the standard logic systems.
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single aspect of
>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the
>>>>> rest of
>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and Tarski
>>>>> are
>>>>> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>
>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to
>>>>> assert
>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts
>>>>> noted
>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>
>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all expressions
>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what "Analytic
>>>> Truth" is.
>>>>
>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition" of
>>>> a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms. You
>>>> are making you classic error of not understanding the context of the
>>>> statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need
>>>> to be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>
>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>
>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
>>>>
>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in (which
>>>> doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the statement
>>>> that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
>>>> Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition, an
>>>> "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be declared
>>>> "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might discover (or be
>>>> discovered by) an alian race that meets that definition.
>>>>
>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic, so
>>>> doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>
>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so
>>>> your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic
>>>> truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are Analytically
>>>> True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
>>>> American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in our
>>>> current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can then
>>>> say that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred has an
>>>> American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology",
>>>> because it isn't true in other models.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>
>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>
>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>
>
> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
> understanding of any sort of philosophy.

No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where you get
your sources.

>
> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
> is stipulated to be true.

Totally wrong, where did you get that from?

A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes that
it is necessarily true by its structure.

Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning of
the words, it must be true, independent of the model the statement is
made in.

>
>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>
>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are known
>> to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually works, and you
>> are too stupid to realize that.
>>
>
> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a bunch
> of rules is it the philosophy of logic.

But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.

Something that seem beyond you.

>
>>>
>>>> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where we
>>>> can show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically True
>>>> Statement.
>>>>
>>>> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a tautology
>>>> (at least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is BY
>>>> NECESSITY true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>>>>
>>>> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
>>>> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>>>>
>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a
>>>> FINITE number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic system
>>>> which don't require that, but the problems you reference are
>>>> specified to be in the standard logic systems.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the
>>>>>> rest of
>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to
>>>>>> assert
>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human
>>>>>> or it
>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts
>>>>>> noted
>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition" of
>>>>> a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms. You
>>>>> are making you classic error of not understanding the context of
>>>>> the statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you
>>>>> need to be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>>
>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>
>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical
>>>>> form.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in (which
>>>>> doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the statement
>>>>> that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
>>>>> Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition, an
>>>>> "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be
>>>>> declared "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might
>>>>> discover (or be discovered by) an alian race that meets that
>>>>> definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic, so
>>>>> doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so
>>>>> your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of
>>>>> analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are
>>>>> Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
>>>>> American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in our
>>>>> current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can then
>>>>> say that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred has an
>>>>> American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology",
>>>>> because it isn't true in other models.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>
>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>
>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>
>>
>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>
> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where you get
> your sources.
>
>>
>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
>> is stipulated to be true.
>
> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>
> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes that
> it is necessarily true by its structure.
>
> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning of
> the words, it must be true, independent of the model the statement is
> made in.
>

Ah so you do understand this. Good job!

>>
>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>
>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are known
>>> to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually works, and you
>>> are too stupid to realize that.
>>>
>>
>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a bunch
>> of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>
> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>
> Something that seem beyond you.

Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be updated
because of otherwise hidden incoherence.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where
>>>>> we can show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically
>>>>> True Statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a
>>>>> tautology (at least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is
>>>>> BY NECESSITY true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>>>>>
>>>>> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
>>>>> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a
>>>>> FINITE number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic system
>>>>> which don't require that, but the problems you reference are
>>>>> specified to be in the standard logic systems.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the
>>>>>>> rest of
>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>>> incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to
>>>>>>> assert
>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human
>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any
>>>>>>> facts noted
>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and True(L,x) is
>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition"
>>>>>> of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms.
>>>>>> You are making you classic error of not understanding the context
>>>>>> of the statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and
>>>>>> you need to be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical
>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the
>>>>>> statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of being
>>>>>> Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this definition,
>>>>>> an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that is can be
>>>>>> declared "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we might
>>>>>> discover (or be discovered by) an alian race that meets that
>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic,
>>>>>> so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so
>>>>>> your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of
>>>>>> analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are
>>>>>> Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords are
>>>>>> American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that in
>>>>>> our current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We can
>>>>>> then say that as an Analytical Truth that within our model, Fred
>>>>>> has an American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a
>>>>>> "Tautology", because it isn't true in other models.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>
>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>
>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>
>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where you
>> get your sources.
>>
>>>
>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>
>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>
>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes that
>> it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>
>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning of
>> the words, it must be true, independent of the model the statement is
>> made in.
>>
>
> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!

But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a Tautology
(unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to make the
DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>
>>>
>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>
>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are
>>>> known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually works,
>>>> and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a
>>> bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>
>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>
>> Something that seem beyond you.
>
> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be updated
> because of otherwise hidden incoherence.

Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been working in.

Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a formal
system.

ACTUAL TRUSTWORTH REFERENCE.

You are just admitting that you don't understand what you are talking about.

Yes, in some of the other branches of philosophy, the rules are more
flexable, but not in Formal Logic, that is the "Formal" part of the
logic system.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where
>>>>>> we can show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically
>>>>>> True Statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a
>>>>>> tautology (at least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it is
>>>>>> BY NECESSITY true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>>>>>>
>>>>>> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
>>>>>> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a
>>>>>> FINITE number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic
>>>>>> system which don't require that, but the problems you reference
>>>>>> are specified to be in the standard logic systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the
>>>>>>>> rest of
>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to
>>>>>>>> assert
>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human
>>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any
>>>>>>>> facts noted
>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are always
>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition"
>>>>>>> of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common terms.
>>>>>>> You are making you classic error of not understanding the context
>>>>>>> of the statements you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and
>>>>>>> you need to be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical
>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the
>>>>>>> statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of
>>>>>>> being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this
>>>>>>> definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that
>>>>>>> is can be declared "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we
>>>>>>> might discover (or be discovered by) an alian race that meets
>>>>>>> that definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic,
>>>>>>> so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so
>>>>>>> your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of
>>>>>>> analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are
>>>>>>> Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords
>>>>>>> are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that
>>>>>>> in our current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We
>>>>>>> can then say that as an Analytical Truth that within our model,
>>>>>>> Fred has an American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a
>>>>>>> "Tautology", because it isn't true in other models.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>
>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where you
>>> get your sources.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>
>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>
>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes
>>> that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>
>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning
>>> of the words, it must be true, independent of the model the statement
>>> is made in.
>>>
>>
>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>
> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a Tautology
> (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to make the
> DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"

So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
for a set of properties that are assigned to it.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are
>>>>> known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually works,
>>>>> and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a
>>>> bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>>
>>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>>
>>> Something that seem beyond you.
>>
>> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be
>> updated because of otherwise hidden incoherence.
>
> Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been working
> in.
>
> Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a formal
> system.
>

That is the primary purpose of philosophy of logic.

> ACTUAL TRUSTWORTH REFERENCE.
>
> You are just admitting that you don't understand what you are talking
> about.
>

The definition of a formal system its incoherent in that it incorrectly
labels formal system as incomplete if they cannot prove contradictory
expressions of language You learned about incompleteness by rote and
accept it as gospel

> Yes, in some of the other branches of philosophy, the rules are more
> flexable, but not in Formal Logic, that is the "Formal" part of the
> logic system.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, x squared is 16 isn't a tautlogy, but in a model where
>>>>>>> we can show that x is 4, then x squared is 16 is a Analytically
>>>>>>> True Statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The statement "If x is 4, then x squared is 16" would be a
>>>>>>> tautology (at least if we can assume normal mathematics), as it
>>>>>>> is BY NECESSITY true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, you alse make a false statement at the end when you say
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> having the semantic property of Boolean true are always provable
>>>>>>> (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Provable" in standard logic requires a
>>>>>>> FINITE number of steps. (Yes, there are some alternate logic
>>>>>>> system which don't require that, but the problems you reference
>>>>>>> are specified to be in the standard logic systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of the
>>>>>>>>> rest of
>>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be
>>>>>>>>> denied
>>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held
>>>>>>>>> to assert
>>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a
>>>>>>>>> human or it
>>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any
>>>>>>>>> facts noted
>>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are
>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal Diffinition"
>>>>>>>> of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination in common
>>>>>>>> terms. You are making you classic error of not understanding the
>>>>>>>> context of the statements you read. Words can have MANY
>>>>>>>> definitions, and you need to be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its
>>>>>>>> logical form.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the
>>>>>>>> statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of
>>>>>>>> being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this
>>>>>>>> definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level that
>>>>>>>> is can be declared "Human" and granted the rights of such, or we
>>>>>>>> might discover (or be discovered by) an alian race that meets
>>>>>>>> that definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its logic,
>>>>>>>> so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies", so
>>>>>>>> your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of
>>>>>>>> analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are
>>>>>>>> Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords
>>>>>>>> are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact that
>>>>>>>> in our current model within the system, that Fred has a Ford. We
>>>>>>>> can then say that as an Analytical Truth that within our model,
>>>>>>>> Fred has an American Built Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a
>>>>>>>> "Tautology", because it isn't true in other models.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>>>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where you
>>>> get your sources.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
>>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>>
>>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>>
>>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes
>>>> that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>>
>>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning
>>>> of the words, it must be true, independent of the model the
>>>> statement is made in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>>
>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a Tautology
>> (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to make the
>> DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>
> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.

Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
"Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are
>>>>>> known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually
>>>>>> works, and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a
>>>>> bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>>>
>>>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>>>
>>>> Something that seem beyond you.
>>>
>>> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be
>>> updated because of otherwise hidden incoherence.
>>
>> Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been
>> working in.
>>
>> Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a formal
>> system.
>>
>
> That is the primary purpose of philosophy of logic.

Nope.

>
>> ACTUAL TRUSTWORTH REFERENCE.
>>
>> You are just admitting that you don't understand what you are talking
>> about.
>>
>
> The definition of a formal system its incoherent in that it incorrectly
> labels formal system as incomplete if they cannot prove contradictory
> expressions of language You learned about incompleteness by rote and
> accept it as gospel

On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of
>>>>>>>>>> the rest of
>>>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> denied
>>>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held
>>>>>>>>>> to assert
>>>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a
>>>>>>>>>> human or it
>>>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any
>>>>>>>>>> facts noted
>>>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are
>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal
>>>>>>>>> Diffinition" of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination
>>>>>>>>> in common terms. You are making you classic error of not
>>>>>>>>> understanding the context of the statements you read. Words can
>>>>>>>>> have MANY definitions, and you need to be consistent in which
>>>>>>>>> ones you use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its
>>>>>>>>> logical form.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the
>>>>>>>>> statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of
>>>>>>>>> being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this
>>>>>>>>> definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level
>>>>>>>>> that is can be declared "Human" and granted the rights of such,
>>>>>>>>> or we might discover (or be discovered by) an alian race that
>>>>>>>>> meets that definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its
>>>>>>>>> logic, so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies",
>>>>>>>>> so your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of
>>>>>>>>> analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are
>>>>>>>>> Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords
>>>>>>>>> are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact
>>>>>>>>> that in our current model within the system, that Fred has a
>>>>>>>>> Ford. We can then say that as an Analytical Truth that within
>>>>>>>>> our model, Fred has an American Built Vehicle, but that
>>>>>>>>> statement is NOT a "Tautology", because it isn't true in other
>>>>>>>>> models.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where
>>>>> you get your sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this definition
>>>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>>>
>>>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes
>>>>> that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning
>>>>> of the words, it must be true, independent of the model the
>>>>> statement is made in.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>>>
>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a Tautology
>>> (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to make the
>>> DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>
>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>
> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>

The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
counter-factual.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are
>>>>>>> known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually
>>>>>>> works, and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a
>>>>>> bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that seem beyond you.
>>>>
>>>> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be
>>>> updated because of otherwise hidden incoherence.
>>>
>>> Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been
>>> working in.
>>>
>>> Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a formal
>>> system.
>>>
>>
>> That is the primary purpose of philosophy of logic.
>
> Nope.

On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a Tautology
>>>> (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to make the
>>>> DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>
>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>
>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>
>
> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
> counter-factual.

No. That's not the way tautologies work.

A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put slightly
differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems entirely from
the meaning *of the logical connectives*.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 7/7/23 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of
>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> denied
>>>>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held
>>>>>>>>>>> to assert
>>>>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a
>>>>>>>>>>> human or it
>>>>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any
>>>>>>>>>>> facts noted
>>>>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are
>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal
>>>>>>>>>> Diffinition" of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination
>>>>>>>>>> in common terms. You are making you classic error of not
>>>>>>>>>> understanding the context of the statements you read. Words
>>>>>>>>>> can have MANY definitions, and you need to be consistent in
>>>>>>>>>> which ones you use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its
>>>>>>>>>> logical form.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality) the
>>>>>>>>>> statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of
>>>>>>>>>> being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this
>>>>>>>>>> definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level
>>>>>>>>>> that is can be declared "Human" and granted the rights of
>>>>>>>>>> such, or we might discover (or be discovered by) an alian race
>>>>>>>>>> that meets that definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its
>>>>>>>>>> logic, so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies",
>>>>>>>>>> so your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body of
>>>>>>>>>> analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement are
>>>>>>>>>> Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All Fords
>>>>>>>>>> are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know fact
>>>>>>>>>> that in our current model within the system, that Fred has a
>>>>>>>>>> Ford. We can then say that as an Analytical Truth that within
>>>>>>>>>> our model, Fred has an American Built Vehicle, but that
>>>>>>>>>> statement is NOT a "Tautology", because it isn't true in other
>>>>>>>>>> models.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where
>>>>>> you get your sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this
>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes
>>>>>> that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic
>>>>>> meaning of the words, it must be true, independent of the model
>>>>>> the statement is made in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>>>>
>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a Tautology
>>>> (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to make the
>>>> DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>
>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>
>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>
>
> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
> counter-factual.

Nope, you just don't understand the meaning of the word as used in the
field. Please show a definition IN THE FIELD OF LOGIC that supports your
meaning.

On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to
>>>>> make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>
>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>
>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>
>>
>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
>> counter-factual.
>
> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>
> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put slightly
> differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems entirely from
> the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>
> André
>

Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider very
competent.

tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
is thus purely a matter of definition.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
this reference that already incorporates that meaning.

You understand that expressions of natural language that can be verified
as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
don't you?

"Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
example of this broader scoped tautology.

My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical use of
the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am incorrect. My
use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/7/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/7/23 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this single
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski are
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> denied
>>>>>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is
>>>>>>>>>>>> held to assert
>>>>>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>> human or it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any
>>>>>>>>>>>> facts noted
>>>>>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true are
>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal
>>>>>>>>>>> Diffinition" of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an explaination
>>>>>>>>>>> in common terms. You are making you classic error of not
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding the context of the statements you read. Words
>>>>>>>>>>> can have MANY definitions, and you need to be consistent in
>>>>>>>>>>> which ones you use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its
>>>>>>>>>>> logical form.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality)
>>>>>>>>>>> the statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a
>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of
>>>>>>>>>>> being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this
>>>>>>>>>>> definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level
>>>>>>>>>>> that is can be declared "Human" and granted the rights of
>>>>>>>>>>> such, or we might discover (or be discovered by) an alian
>>>>>>>>>>> race that meets that definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its
>>>>>>>>>>> logic, so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are "Tautollgies",
>>>>>>>>>>> so your statement that "Within tautologies (the entire body
>>>>>>>>>>> of analytic truth)" is just a false statement. Many statement
>>>>>>>>>>> are Analytically True because they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All
>>>>>>>>>>> Fords are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know
>>>>>>>>>>> fact that in our current model within the system, that Fred
>>>>>>>>>>> has a Ford. We can then say that as an Analytical Truth that
>>>>>>>>>>> within our model, Fred has an American Built Vehicle, but
>>>>>>>>>>> that statement is NOT a "Tautology", because it isn't true in
>>>>>>>>>>> other models.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>>> talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>>>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where
>>>>>>> you get your sources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>>>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this
>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that establishes
>>>>>>> that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic
>>>>>>> meaning of the words, it must be true, independent of the model
>>>>>>> the statement is made in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>>>>>
>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to
>>>>> make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>
>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>
>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>
>>
>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
>> counter-factual.
>
> Nope, you just don't understand the meaning of the word as used in the
> field. Please show a definition IN THE FIELD OF LOGIC that supports your
> meaning.
>
> Tautologies are True by there form alone, and not based on any "facts"
> of the model, so are always true in all models.
>
> There is a small gray area where a "System" may define words with
> additional properties not part of the "universal" system, and thus some
> statements may become "Necessarily True" within that system (and not
> just within a model of the system), making some things Tautologies in
> just that system, but then you need to specify that system. This becomes
> gray because such systems are really also just models of a bigger
> system, so the statement isn't true in all models, thus the need to
> augment the declaration with the system it is restricted to.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that are
>>>>>>>>> known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic actually
>>>>>>>>> works, and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of a
>>>>>>>> bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something that seem beyond you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be
>>>>>> updated because of otherwise hidden incoherence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been
>>>>> working in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a
>>>>> formal system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is the primary purpose of philosophy of logic.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yup. You probably think that is comes from memorizing the
>> rules of a textbook. It was actually the famous philosopher
>> Aristotle that invented the basis for logic.
>
> Right, and he talked about using reason to derive a set of rules, and
> then using those rules to reason correctly.
>
> Once you establish the rules you are going to work under, you need to
> kepe to them.
>
> You are, of course, entirely in your right to say the existing rules
> being used are incorrect, and then propose your own, but then you need
> to start AT GROUND ZERO and work your way back up to show they are useful.
>
> It is against the rules of logic to change some of your rules, and then
> just use things built on the previous rules without proving they are
> still applicable.
>
> You seem to think it is ok to dig a hole around (and under) the
> foundation of the building and expect the building to still be standing.
>
> You just are proving you don't understand even the basic foundation of
> logic, because you mind is to ignorant of the rules and too stupid to
> learn them.
>
> So, until you actually COMPLETELY define what your rules mean, and then
> show what can beactually derived from them (to the point of showing that
> 1+1 still equals 2), you are just lying that you have an answer.
>
> And even if you CAN come up with such a system, it will still be a
> proven fact, that in the system that is currently in use, the fact the
> Halting Problem is unsolvable will still be true. Your new system
> doesn't say anything about the old system, since it differs from it.

On 7/7/23 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/23 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Tarski are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be denied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> held to assert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> human or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any facts noted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mammal and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are always
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal
>>>>>>>>>>>> Diffinition" of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an
>>>>>>>>>>>> explaination in common terms. You are making you classic
>>>>>>>>>>>> error of not understanding the context of the statements you
>>>>>>>>>>>> read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working in
>>>>>>>>>>>> (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider reality)
>>>>>>>>>>>> the statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might not be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By this
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a level
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is can be declared "Human" and granted the rights of
>>>>>>>>>>>> such, or we might discover (or be discovered by) an alian
>>>>>>>>>>>> race that meets that definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Tautollgies", so your statement that "Within tautologies
>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire body of analytic truth)" is just a false
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. Many statement are Analytically True because they
>>>>>>>>>>>> follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fords are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a know
>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that in our current model within the system, that Fred
>>>>>>>>>>>> has a Ford. We can then say that as an Analytical Truth that
>>>>>>>>>>>> within our model, Fred has an American Built Vehicle, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> that statement is NOT a "Tautology", because it isn't true
>>>>>>>>>>>> in other models.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>>>> are talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>>>>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote where
>>>>>>>> you get your sources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>>>>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this
>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that
>>>>>>>> establishes that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic
>>>>>>>> meaning of the words, it must be true, independent of the model
>>>>>>>> the statement is made in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to
>>>>>> make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>>>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
>>> counter-factual.
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand the meaning of the word as used in the
>> field. Please show a definition IN THE FIELD OF LOGIC that supports
>> your meaning.
>>
>> Tautologies are True by there form alone, and not based on any "facts"
>> of the model, so are always true in all models.
>>
>> There is a small gray area where a "System" may define words with
>> additional properties not part of the "universal" system, and thus
>> some statements may become "Necessarily True" within that system (and
>> not just within a model of the system), making some things Tautologies
>> in just that system, but then you need to specify that system. This
>> becomes gray because such systems are really also just models of a
>> bigger system, so the statement isn't true in all models, thus the
>> need to augment the declaration with the system it is restricted to.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that
>>>>>>>>>> are known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic
>>>>>>>>>> actually works, and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of
>>>>>>>>> a bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something that seem beyond you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be
>>>>>>> updated because of otherwise hidden incoherence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been
>>>>>> working in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a
>>>>>> formal system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the primary purpose of philosophy of logic.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yup. You probably think that is comes from memorizing the
>>> rules of a textbook. It was actually the famous philosopher
>>> Aristotle that invented the basis for logic.
>>
>> Right, and he talked about using reason to derive a set of rules, and
>> then using those rules to reason correctly.
>>
>> Once you establish the rules you are going to work under, you need to
>> kepe to them.
>>
>> You are, of course, entirely in your right to say the existing rules
>> being used are incorrect, and then propose your own, but then you need
>> to start AT GROUND ZERO and work your way back up to show they are
>> useful.
>>
>> It is against the rules of logic to change some of your rules, and
>> then just use things built on the previous rules without proving they
>> are still applicable.
>>
>> You seem to think it is ok to dig a hole around (and under) the
>> foundation of the building and expect the building to still be standing.
>>
>> You just are proving you don't understand even the basic foundation of
>> logic, because you mind is to ignorant of the rules and too stupid to
>> learn them.
>>
>> So, until you actually COMPLETELY define what your rules mean, and
>> then show what can beactually derived from them (to the point of
>> showing that 1+1 still equals 2), you are just lying that you have an
>> answer.
>>
>> And even if you CAN come up with such a system, it will still be a
>> proven fact, that in the system that is currently in use, the fact the
>> Halting Problem is unsolvable will still be true. Your new system
>> doesn't say anything about the old system, since it differs from it.
>
> See my reply to Andre. You already indicated that you understand:
>
> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning of
> > the words, it must be true, independent of the model the statement is
> > made in.
>
> Green cats are always green even in Chinese or symbolic logic.
>

On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems to
>>>>>> make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>>>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is stipulated
>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
>>> counter-factual.
>>
>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>
>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put slightly
>> differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems entirely
>> from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider very
> competent.
>
> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
> is thus purely a matter of definition.
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>
> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.

That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any other
technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a reliable source
of information.

> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be verified
> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
> don't you?
>
> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
> example of this broader scoped tautology.

That's not a tautology either.

> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical use of
> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am incorrect. My
> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.

If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then yes,
you are incorrect. Words acquire meaning via convention, and if you
break those conventions you will not be understood.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 7/7/2023 12:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems
>>>>>>> to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>>>>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>> stipulated
>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
>>>> counter-factual.
>>>
>>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>>
>>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put slightly
>>> differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems entirely
>>> from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider very
>> competent.
>>
>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>
>> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
>> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.
>
> That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any other
> technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a reliable source
> of information.
>
>> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be verified
>> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
>> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
>> don't you?
>>
>> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
>> example of this broader scoped tautology.
>
> That's not a tautology either.
>

Can you deny it without inconsistency ?

That it does not match the definition of tautology that you are
accustomed to does not mean that it does not match the more broadly
defined term of {semantic tautology} that I and Britannica refer to.

Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
inconsistency is a semantic tautology.

>> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical use of
>> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am incorrect. My
>> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.
>
> If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then yes,

In the field of the philosophy of logic we must deal with things such as
the analytic/synthetic distinction. Formal logic doesn't care about such
things and is limited to only going by the book.

Only philosophy of logic can find inconsistencies and incoherence in the
book. Formal logic merely take these things as "given" even if they are
inconsistent and incoherent.

> you are incorrect. Words acquire meaning via convention, and if you
> break those conventions you will not be understood.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/7/2023 12:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/7/23 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/7/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/7/23 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/23 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/23 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2023 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that I have been so narrowly focused on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical positivism (Logicism) that I was totally unaware
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. This part of logical positivism is correct and Gödel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Tarski are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Logicism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be denied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> held to assert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human or it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any facts noted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and mammal and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within tautologies (the entire body of analytic truth) all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of language having the semantic property of Boolean true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable (sometimes requiring infinite proof steps) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L,x) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always definable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you just don't understand what a Tautology is, or what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic Truth" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that definitionn you quote is NOT the "Formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diffinition" of a Tautolgy in logic, but just an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaination in common terms. You are making you classic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> error of not understanding the context of the statements
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you read. Words can have MANY definitions, and you need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be consistent in which ones you use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A more formal definition within logic is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, depending on the Analytical Framework you are working
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in (which doesn't need to relate to what we consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality) the statement that "All Humans are Mammals" might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, it might be defined that "Human" is a state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of being Self-Aware and driven by a moral imperative. By
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this definition, an "Artificial Intelegence" might reach a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> level that is can be declared "Human" and granted the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights of such, or we might discover (or be discovered by)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an alian race that meets that definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The definition you are using mixes in Empericism into its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, so doesn't apply to purely "Analytic" systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, not all "Analyticly True" statements are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Tautollgies", so your statement that "Within tautologies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the entire body of analytic truth)" is just a false
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. Many statement are Analytically True because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they follow from known statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, we may have as part of are system that All
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fords are American Built Vehicles, and we may have as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know fact that in our current model within the system, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fred has a Ford. We can then say that as an Analytical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth that within our model, Fred has an American Built
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vehicle, but that statement is NOT a "Tautology", because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it isn't true in other models.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just proved that you don't have a clue about these things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why? What is the ERROR?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just saying I am wrong, shows you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about and actually have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is a philosophy of logic thing and you have shown zero
>>>>>>>>>> understanding of any sort of philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No YOU have shown zero understanding, you can't even quote
>>>>>>>>> where you get your sources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is a set of finite strings that are stipulated to be
>>>>>>>>>> entirely defined in terms of other finite strings and this
>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>> is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Totally wrong, where did you get that from?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A Tautology is a statement (not a finite string) that
>>>>>>>>> establishes that it is necessarily true by its structure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic
>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words, it must be true, independent of the model
>>>>>>>>> the statement is made in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah so you do understand this. Good job!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems
>>>>>>> to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can define
>>>>> "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>> stipulated
>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is rejected as
>>>> counter-factual.
>>>
>>> Nope, you just don't understand the meaning of the word as used in
>>> the field. Please show a definition IN THE FIELD OF LOGIC that
>>> supports your meaning.
>>>
>>> Tautologies are True by there form alone, and not based on any
>>> "facts" of the model, so are always true in all models.
>>>
>>> There is a small gray area where a "System" may define words with
>>> additional properties not part of the "universal" system, and thus
>>> some statements may become "Necessarily True" within that system (and
>>> not just within a model of the system), making some things
>>> Tautologies in just that system, but then you need to specify that
>>> system. This becomes gray because such systems are really also just
>>> models of a bigger system, so the statement isn't true in all models,
>>> thus the need to augment the declaration with the system it is
>>> restricted to.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, effectively admitting that I am right, and you are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You fill your words with most of the logical fallacies that
>>>>>>>>>>> are known to man, because you are ignorant of how logic
>>>>>>>>>>> actually works, and you are too stupid to realize that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual foundation of logic is not the rote memorization of
>>>>>>>>>> a bunch of rules is it the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you need to follow the rules to be doing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Something that seem beyond you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Philosophers of logic find aspects of the rules that need to be
>>>>>>>> updated because of otherwise hidden incoherence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't allowed in formal logic systemm, which you have been
>>>>>>> working in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you get that you are allowed to change the rules in a
>>>>>>> formal system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the primary purpose of philosophy of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. You probably think that is comes from memorizing the
>>>> rules of a textbook. It was actually the famous philosopher
>>>> Aristotle that invented the basis for logic.
>>>
>>> Right, and he talked about using reason to derive a set of rules, and
>>> then using those rules to reason correctly.
>>>
>>> Once you establish the rules you are going to work under, you need to
>>> kepe to them.
>>>
>>> You are, of course, entirely in your right to say the existing rules
>>> being used are incorrect, and then propose your own, but then you
>>> need to start AT GROUND ZERO and work your way back up to show they
>>> are useful.
>>>
>>> It is against the rules of logic to change some of your rules, and
>>> then just use things built on the previous rules without proving they
>>> are still applicable.
>>>
>>> You seem to think it is ok to dig a hole around (and under) the
>>> foundation of the building and expect the building to still be standing.
>>>
>>> You just are proving you don't understand even the basic foundation
>>> of logic, because you mind is to ignorant of the rules and too stupid
>>> to learn them.
>>>
>>> So, until you actually COMPLETELY define what your rules mean, and
>>> then show what can beactually derived from them (to the point of
>>> showing that 1+1 still equals 2), you are just lying that you have an
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> And even if you CAN come up with such a system, it will still be a
>>> proven fact, that in the system that is currently in use, the fact
>>> the Halting Problem is unsolvable will still be true. Your new system
>>> doesn't say anything about the old system, since it differs from it.
>>
>> See my reply to Andre. You already indicated that you understand:
>>
>> On 7/6/2023 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > Green cats are Green is a Tautology, because from the basic meaning of
>>  > the words, it must be true, independent of the model the statement is
>>  > made in.
>>
>> Green cats are always green even in Chinese or symbolic logic.
>>
>
> Right, and that is because "green cats" are fundamentally define as a
> Cat that is Green.
>
> Humans are not fundamentally defined as being Mammals. Maybe "Homo
> Sapiens" are defined as a type of Mammal, but the term Human, isn't the
> same term.
>
> For instance, one debate going on is at what point would an "AI" become
> self-aware enough that terminating it would be a violation of its "Human
> Rights" to exist.
>
> Also, remember, there were periods in time when some of the races were
> considered "Sub-Human" and thus not afforded the rights of Humanity,
> even though it was admitted that they were derived from the same base
> stock.
>
> To be a "Tautology" it must not be able to be denied in ANY model of the
> system, and that includes models that don't match what we consider to be
> "reality", as that is just the assertion of "Emperical" Truths.
>
> You seem to have a fundamental issue with understanding what words
> actually mean and the affect of context on them. Likely because you have
> refused to actually learn what they mean, and even put down the idea
> that we should actually understand and apply the rules.
>
> Humans being Mammals IS consistently refutable in a potential model
> where an AI is self-aware enough that it is granted the status of being
> "Human". If ANY model refutes the statement, it is not a Tautology.

On 7/7/23 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 12:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems
>>>>>>>> to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can
>>>>>> define "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>>> stipulated
>>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is
>>>>> rejected as
>>>>> counter-factual.
>>>>
>>>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>>>
>>>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put
>>>> slightly differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems
>>>> entirely from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider very
>>> competent.
>>>
>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>
>>> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
>>> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.
>>
>> That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any
>> other technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a reliable
>> source of information.
>>
>>> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be verified
>>> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
>>> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
>>> example of this broader scoped tautology.
>>
>> That's not a tautology either.
>>
>
> Can you deny it without inconsistency ?
>
> That it does not match the definition of tautology that you are
> accustomed to does not mean that it does not match the more broadly
> defined term of {semantic tautology} that I and Britannica refer to.

Uasing the wrong definition of a word is just one form of LYING.

Your failure to understand that is one reason you have become a
Pathological Liar.

>
> Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
> inconsistency is a semantic tautology.
>
>>> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical use of
>>> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am incorrect. My
>>> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.
>>
>> If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then yes,
>
> In the field of the philosophy of logic we must deal with things such as
> the analytic/synthetic distinction. Formal logic doesn't care about such
> things and is limited to only going by the book.

Because "Formal Systems" don't have "A World" that can create a
synthetic distinction, except what comes out as the repeated (and
perhaps infinite) application of the principles the system was created with.

>
> Only philosophy of logic can find inconsistencies and incoherence in the
> book. Formal logic merely take these things as "given" even if they are
> inconsistent and incoherent.

So, point to the actual "inconsistency" in the formal system. Not that
you think is inconsistent, but an ACTUAL inconsistency, where a
statement shows another statement both true and false.

Remember, in the formal system, you can only use the definitions and
principles that were brought into the system at its creation. Adding new
ones creates a new "Sub System", and an inconsistancy in that sub-system
just shows that those new ideas likely were the cause of the problems.

>
>> you are incorrect. Words acquire meaning via convention, and if you
>> break those conventions you will not be understood.
>>
>> André
>>
>

On 7/7/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 12:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> Right, and that is because "green cats" are fundamentally define as a
>> Cat that is Green.
>>
>> Humans are not fundamentally defined as being Mammals. Maybe "Homo
>> Sapiens" are defined as a type of Mammal, but the term Human, isn't
>> the same term.
>>
>> For instance, one debate going on is at what point would an "AI"
>> become self-aware enough that terminating it would be a violation of
>> its "Human Rights" to exist.
>>
>> Also, remember, there were periods in time when some of the races were
>> considered "Sub-Human" and thus not afforded the rights of Humanity,
>> even though it was admitted that they were derived from the same base
>> stock.
>>
>> To be a "Tautology" it must not be able to be denied in ANY model of
>> the system, and that includes models that don't match what we consider
>> to be "reality", as that is just the assertion of "Emperical" Truths.
>>
>> You seem to have a fundamental issue with understanding what words
>> actually mean and the affect of context on them. Likely because you
>> have refused to actually learn what they mean, and even put down the
>> idea that we should actually understand and apply the rules.
>>
>> Humans being Mammals IS consistently refutable in a potential model
>> where an AI is self-aware enough that it is granted the status of
>> being "Human". If ANY model refutes the statement, it is not a Tautology.
>
> Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
> inconsistency is a semantic tautology.
>
> All humans are necessarily mammals because of the stipulated definitions
> of those terms.
>

WHAT "Stipulated Definition" of Humans?

Your "Stipulated Definition" of Humans being Homo-Sapians, and thus
mammals is part of a Model of the world, thus not justified to be used
as a Tautology.

You are just PROVING that you don't understand the meaning of the words
you are using.

Tautologies, without an explict reference to some system they are in,
use the most general definitions of the words.

I pointed out a very real meaning of the word "Human" as used in Natural
Language so you are just proving you are a LIAR.

On 2023-07-07 12:00, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 12:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems
>>>>>>>> to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can
>>>>>> define "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>>> stipulated
>>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is
>>>>> rejected as
>>>>> counter-factual.
>>>>
>>>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>>>
>>>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put
>>>> slightly differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems
>>>> entirely from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider very
>>> competent.
>>>
>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>
>>> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
>>> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.
>>
>> That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any
>> other technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a reliable
>> source of information.
>>
>>> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be verified
>>> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
>>> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
>>> example of this broader scoped tautology.

'baby kittens' as opposed to 'adult kittens'.

>> That's not a tautology either.
>>
>
> Can you deny it without inconsistency ?

Of course I can. Do you understand what 'inconsistency' means? hint: it
doesn't mean something which fails to match the real world; it means
something in which a given proposition X is both true and false.

Consider a model in which there are exactly two entities, fluffy and
mittens, and exactly two predicates: Kitten() and OfficeBuilding().

What is inconsistent about the following assignment?

Kitten = {fluffy, mittens}
OfficeBuilding = {fluffy}

> That it does not match the definition of tautology that you are
> accustomed to does not mean that it does not match the more broadly
> defined term of {semantic tautology} that I and Britannica refer to.

Britannica's definition is fine. It is their example which is terrible.

> Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
> inconsistency is a semantic tautology.
>
>>> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical use of
>>> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am incorrect. My
>>> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.
>>
>> If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then yes,
>
> In the field of the philosophy of logic we must deal with things such as
> the analytic/synthetic distinction. Formal logic doesn't care about such
> things and is limited to only going by the book.

The analytic/synthetic distinction is part of the philosophy of
*language*, not the philosophy of logic. And it is unrelated to the
notion of a tautology.

An analytic sentence is a sentence which is true based on the meanings
of the words involved. This is not a particularly useful concept and
always applied to a very small, uninteresting subset of sentences.

A tautology is a statement which can be shown to be true based only on
the meanings of the *connectives*. Put differently, it is a statement
which can be shown to be true *without* knowing the meanings of any of
the individual terms.

For example, "All zorns which are feliferous are zorns' is demonstrably
true even if you have no idea what a zorn is or what it means for
something to be feliferous. It is a tautology because its truth stems
from its *structure* rather than the meanings of its parts.

> Only philosophy of logic can find inconsistencies and incoherence in the
> book. Formal logic merely take these things as "given" even if they are
> inconsistent and incoherent.

Which book?

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 7/7/2023 1:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2023-07-07 12:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/7/2023 12:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of systems
>>>>>>>>> to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a "Mammal"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can
>>>>>>> define "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>>>> stipulated
>>>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is
>>>>>> rejected as
>>>>>> counter-factual.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>>>>
>>>>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put
>>>>> slightly differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems
>>>>> entirely from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider very
>>>> competent.
>>>>
>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts
>>>> noted
>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>
>>>> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
>>>> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.
>>>
>>> That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any
>>> other technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a
>>> reliable source of information.
>>>
>>>> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be
>>>> verified
>>>> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
>>>> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
>>>> don't you?
>>>>
>>>> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
>>>> example of this broader scoped tautology.
>
> 'baby kittens' as opposed to 'adult kittens'.
>
>>> That's not a tautology either.
>>>
>>
>> Can you deny it without inconsistency ?
>
> Of course I can. Do you understand what 'inconsistency' means? hint: it
> doesn't mean something which fails to match the real world; it means
> something in which a given proposition X is both true and false.
>
> Consider a model in which there are exactly two entities, fluffy and
> mittens, and exactly two predicates: Kitten() and OfficeBuilding().
>
> What is inconsistent about the following assignment?
>
> Kitten = {fluffy, mittens}
> OfficeBuilding = {fluffy}
>
>> That it does not match the definition of tautology that you are
>> accustomed to does not mean that it does not match the more broadly
>> defined term of {semantic tautology} that I and Britannica refer to.
>
> Britannica's definition is fine. It is their example which is terrible.
>
>> Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
>> inconsistency is a semantic tautology.
>>
>>>> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical
>>>> use of
>>>> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am
>>>> incorrect. My
>>>> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.
>>>
>>> If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then yes,
>>
>> In the field of the philosophy of logic we must deal with things such as
>> the analytic/synthetic distinction. Formal logic doesn't care about such
>> things and is limited to only going by the book.
>
> The analytic/synthetic distinction is part of the philosophy of
> *language*, not the philosophy of logic. And it is unrelated to the
> notion of a tautology.
>

I am stipulating that anything that pertains to the nature of truth
pertains to the philosophy of logic.

> An analytic sentence is a sentence which is true based on the meanings
> of the words involved. This is not a particularly useful concept and
> always applied to a very small, uninteresting subset of sentences.
>

"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of
their meaning..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

I am stipulating that this includes meanings specified in the formal
languages of formal systems.

> A tautology is a statement which can be shown to be true based only on
> the meanings of the *connectives*. Put differently, it is a statement
> which can be shown to be true *without* knowing the meanings of any of
> the individual terms.
>

I am stipulating that a {semantic tautology} includes every expression
of formal or natural language that can be verified as completely true
entirely on the basis of its semantic meaning.

> For example, "All zorns which are feliferous are zorns' is demonstrably
> true even if you have no idea what a zorn is or what it means for
> something to be feliferous. It is a tautology because its truth stems
> from its *structure* rather than the meanings of its parts.
>
>> Only philosophy of logic can find inconsistencies and incoherence in the
>> book. Formal logic merely take these things as "given" even if they are
>> inconsistent and incoherent.
>
> Which book?
>

Textbooks on logic derive an analytical framework such that a formal
system can be construed as incomplete entirely on the basis that it
cannot prove contradictory expressions of language.

The Tarski undefinability theorem is anchored in the Liar Paradox.

When analytic truth is understood to be a {semantic tautology} then
we know that true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist because
true is stipulated to mean the existence of a semantic connection
that establishes this truth.

As Richard aptly pointed out for things such as the Goldbach conjecture
this semantic connection may require an infinite number of steps.

It is crucial that we refute Tarski because the current state of AI
has no idea of the difference between truth and fiction and often
just makes stuff up out of thin air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 7/7/23 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 1:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2023-07-07 12:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2023 12:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of
>>>>>>>>>> systems to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is a
>>>>>>>>>> "Mammal"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can
>>>>>>>> define "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>>>>> stipulated
>>>>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is
>>>>>>> rejected as
>>>>>>> counter-factual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put
>>>>>> slightly differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth stems
>>>>>> entirely from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider
>>>>> very competent.
>>>>>
>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to
>>>>> assert
>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts
>>>>> noted
>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
>>>>> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.
>>>>
>>>> That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any
>>>> other technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a
>>>> reliable source of information.
>>>>
>>>>> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be
>>>>> verified
>>>>> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning are
>>>>> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
>>>>> example of this broader scoped tautology.
>>
>> 'baby kittens' as opposed to 'adult kittens'.
>>
>>>> That's not a tautology either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you deny it without inconsistency ?
>>
>> Of course I can. Do you understand what 'inconsistency' means? hint:
>> it doesn't mean something which fails to match the real world; it
>> means something in which a given proposition X is both true and false.
>>
>> Consider a model in which there are exactly two entities, fluffy and
>> mittens, and exactly two predicates: Kitten() and OfficeBuilding().
>>
>> What is inconsistent about the following assignment?
>>
>> Kitten = {fluffy, mittens}
>> OfficeBuilding = {fluffy}
>>
>>> That it does not match the definition of tautology that you are
>>> accustomed to does not mean that it does not match the more broadly
>>> defined term of {semantic tautology} that I and Britannica refer to.
>>
>> Britannica's definition is fine. It is their example which is terrible.
>>
>>> Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
>>> inconsistency is a semantic tautology.
>>>
>>>>> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical
>>>>> use of
>>>>> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am
>>>>> incorrect. My
>>>>> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.
>>>>
>>>> If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then yes,
>>>
>>> In the field of the philosophy of logic we must deal with things such as
>>> the analytic/synthetic distinction. Formal logic doesn't care about such
>>> things and is limited to only going by the book.
>>
>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is part of the philosophy of
>> *language*, not the philosophy of logic. And it is unrelated to the
>> notion of a tautology.
>>
>
> I am stipulating that anything that pertains to the nature of truth
> pertains to the philosophy of logic.

By what athority?

Someone can stipulate anything they want, but if the stipulate a
falsehood their whole arguement becomes unsound.

>
>> An analytic sentence is a sentence which is true based on the meanings
>> of the words involved. This is not a particularly useful concept and
>> always applied to a very small, uninteresting subset of sentences.
>>
>
>    "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of
>    their meaning..."
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>
> I am stipulating that this includes meanings specified in the formal
> languages of formal systems.

But you have to understand what they meant by "Meaning". It goes well
beyond the "Dictionary Definition" of the words being used.

Yes, the interactions defined in a format system define what a
proposition means. A chain of reasoning (even if infinite) from the
premises of the Formal System using the Relationships defined in that
Formal System establish that a statement is true, by its "Meaning".

Thus, we can do things like establish that for a "Right Triangle", that
the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the
other two sides is true by it "Meaning" even if you can't show it is
true by the simple meaning of the words.

Thus, Turings PROOF shows that, it is true by virtue of its meaning,
that there is no possible machine that can return the halting property
of the machine and input described it it via its input, as that is
established in the PROOF via a set of valid steps from the stipulated
assumptions of the field via the valid logical operation.

In the same way Godel has PROVEN that in any system with suffient power
to have the needed properties of the Natural Numbers, there exist
statements that are True in that system (because there exist a,
possibly infinte, series of valid steps from the axioms of the system to
it) that can not be proven, because there is no FINITE number of steps
that can be used in the system to establish it, and thus the system is
"Incomplete" per the stipulated definition of Incompleteness (that there
exist true statements that can not be proven).

>
>> A tautology is a statement which can be shown to be true based only on
>> the meanings of the *connectives*. Put differently, it is a statement
>> which can be shown to be true *without* knowing the meanings of any of
>> the individual terms.
>>
>
> I am stipulating that a {semantic tautology} includes every expression
> of formal or natural language that can be verified as completely true
> entirely on the basis of its semantic meaning.

So, you are stipulating that you are using a term outside its accepted
meaning, and thus your arguement is invalid if you try to make any use
of the actual accepted meaning of the term.

On 7/7/2023 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/7/23 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/7/2023 1:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-07 12:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2023 12:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-07-07 10:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/2023 9:56 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-07-07 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 11:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2023 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But Humans are Mammals is not. It may be True, but isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology (unless you have restricted your univerese of
>>>>>>>>>>> systems to make the DEFINITION of "Human" include that is is
>>>>>>>>>>> a "Mammal"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So maybe humans are really boxcars? {Human} is a placeholder
>>>>>>>>>> for a set of properties that are assigned to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, and I gave an example of a set of properties that can
>>>>>>>>> define "Human" that means that not all "Humans" might be Mammals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The way that tautologies work is that humans <are> mammals is
>>>>>>>> stipulated
>>>>>>>> to be an axiom, thus changing this from <are> to {might} is
>>>>>>>> rejected as
>>>>>>>> counter-factual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. That's not the way tautologies work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A tautology is a statement which is true in every model. Put
>>>>>>> slightly differently, a tautology is a statement whose truth
>>>>>>> stems entirely from the meaning *of the logical connectives*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome back, you are one of very few reviewers that I consider
>>>>>> very competent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
>>>>>> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to
>>>>>> assert
>>>>>> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human
>>>>>> or it
>>>>>> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts
>>>>>> noted
>>>>>> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> is thus purely a matter of definition.
>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to refer to the above as a {semantic tautology} until I found
>>>>>> this reference that already incorporates that meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> That example is terrible. If you want to learn about logic (or any
>>>>> other technical subject), Encyclopaedia Britannica is *not* a
>>>>> reliable source of information.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You understand that expressions of natural language that can be
>>>>>> verified
>>>>>> as completely true entirely on the basis of their semantic meaning
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> also: statements "that it cannot be denied without inconsistency",
>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building." is an
>>>>>> example of this broader scoped tautology.
>>>
>>> 'baby kittens' as opposed to 'adult kittens'.
>>>
>>>>> That's not a tautology either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you deny it without inconsistency ?
>>>
>>> Of course I can. Do you understand what 'inconsistency' means? hint:
>>> it doesn't mean something which fails to match the real world; it
>>> means something in which a given proposition X is both true and false.
>>>
>>> Consider a model in which there are exactly two entities, fluffy and
>>> mittens, and exactly two predicates: Kitten() and OfficeBuilding().
>>>
>>> What is inconsistent about the following assignment?
>>>
>>> Kitten = {fluffy, mittens}
>>> OfficeBuilding = {fluffy}
>>>
>>>> That it does not match the definition of tautology that you are
>>>> accustomed to does not mean that it does not match the more broadly
>>>> defined term of {semantic tautology} that I and Britannica refer to.
>>>
>>> Britannica's definition is fine. It is their example which is terrible.
>>>
>>>> Any expression of natural or formal language cannot be denied without
>>>> inconsistency is a semantic tautology.
>>>>
>>>>>> My use of the term {tautology} is simply broader than the typical
>>>>>> use of
>>>>>> the term within formal logic. That does not mean that I am
>>>>>> incorrect. My
>>>>>> use of the term is perfectly apt within the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you use it in a way that doesn't conform to standard usage then
>>>>> yes,
>>>>
>>>> In the field of the philosophy of logic we must deal with things
>>>> such as
>>>> the analytic/synthetic distinction. Formal logic doesn't care about
>>>> such
>>>> things and is limited to only going by the book.
>>>
>>> The analytic/synthetic distinction is part of the philosophy of
>>> *language*, not the philosophy of logic. And it is unrelated to the
>>> notion of a tautology.
>>>
>>
>> I am stipulating that anything that pertains to the nature of truth
>> pertains to the philosophy of logic.
>
> By what athority?
>
> Someone can stipulate anything they want, but if the stipulate a
> falsehood their whole arguement becomes unsound.
>
>>
>>> An analytic sentence is a sentence which is true based on the
>>> meanings of the words involved. This is not a particularly useful
>>> concept and always applied to a very small, uninteresting subset of
>>> sentences.
>>>
>>
>>     "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of
>>     their meaning..."
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>
>> I am stipulating that this includes meanings specified in the formal
>> languages of formal systems.
>
> But you have to understand what they meant by "Meaning". It goes well
> beyond the "Dictionary Definition" of the words being used.
>
> Yes, the interactions defined in a format system define what a
> proposition means. A chain of reasoning (even if infinite) from the
> premises of the Formal System using the Relationships defined in that
> Formal System establish that a statement is true, by its "Meaning".
>
> Thus, we can do things like establish that for a "Right Triangle", that
> the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the
> other two sides is true by it "Meaning" even if you can't show it is
> true by the simple meaning of the words.
>
> Thus, Turings PROOF shows that, it is true by virtue of its meaning,
> that there is no possible machine that can return the halting property
> of the machine and input described it it via its input, as that is
> established in the PROOF via a set of valid steps from the stipulated
> assumptions of the field via the valid logical operation.
>
> In the same way Godel has PROVEN that in any system with suffient power
> to have the needed properties of the Natural Numbers, there exist
> statements that are True in that system  (because there exist a,
> possibly infinte, series of valid steps from the axioms of the system to
> it) that can not be proven, because there is no FINITE number of steps
> that can be used in the system to establish it, and thus the system is
> "Incomplete" per the stipulated definition of Incompleteness (that there
> exist true statements that can not be proven).
>
>>
>>> A tautology is a statement which can be shown to be true based only
>>> on the meanings of the *connectives*. Put differently, it is a
>>> statement which can be shown to be true *without* knowing the
>>> meanings of any of the individual terms.
>>>
>>
>> I am stipulating that a {semantic tautology} includes every expression
>> of formal or natural language that can be verified as completely true
>> entirely on the basis of its semantic meaning.
>
> So, you are stipulating that you are using a term outside its accepted
> meaning, and thus your arguement is invalid if you try to make any use
> of the actual accepted meaning of the term.
>
>>
>>> For example, "All zorns which are feliferous are zorns' is
>>> demonstrably true even if you have no idea what a zorn is or what it
>>> means for something to be feliferous. It is a tautology because its
>>> truth stems from its *structure* rather than the meanings of its parts.
>>>
>>>> Only philosophy of logic can find inconsistencies and incoherence in
>>>> the
>>>> book. Formal logic merely take these things as "given" even if they are
>>>> inconsistent and incoherent.
>>>
>>> Which book?
>>>
>>
>> Textbooks on logic derive an analytical framework such that a formal
>> system can be construed as incomplete entirely on the basis that it
>> cannot prove contradictory expressions of language.
>
> No, that isn't what they say and shows your ignorance.
>
> Incomplete means that there exists a TRUE statement (which can be
> established by an infinte set of steps in the system) that can not be
> PROVEN (established by a FINITE set of steps in the system).
>
> No "Contadictory Expression of Language" can be true in a consistent
> system.
>
>>
>> The Tarski undefinability theorem is anchored in the Liar Paradox.
>
> Nope, agains, shows you utter ignorance of the theorem.
>
>>
>> When analytic truth is understood to be a {semantic tautology} then
>> we know that true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist because
>> true is stipulated to mean the existence of a semantic connection
>> that establishes this truth.
>
> So, you just admitted that you "Logic" is based on a LIE, so nothing you
> say has any validity, and you have proven your self to be Ignorant, and
> a Pathological Liar, and an Idiot.
>
>>
>> As Richard aptly pointed out for things such as the Goldbach conjecture
>> this semantic connection may require an infinite number of steps.
>
>
> Right, which is allowed.
>
>>
>> It is crucial that we refute Tarski because the current state of AI
>> has no idea of the difference between truth and fiction and often
>> just makes stuff up out of thin air.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)
>>
>
> Nope, you don't understand the actual nature of the problem. Tarski
> tells us that we can't build a COMPUTABLE predicate that determines the
> actual truth of ALL statements. We CAN build predicates that can
> determine the actual truth for MANY statements, and gets none of the
> statements it decides on incorrectly, either by not answering the ones
> it can't decide, or giving a "Can't Tell" answer. Tarski fully allows
> for that.
>
> Note, the problem with AI isn't Tarski, but that "Truth Testing" is
> expensive, and for an AI it means the input is a lot more expensive to
> aquire as you need to validate the data you feed it. Particularly when
> dealing with emperical data (and synthetic truths) to get data that can
> be actually established as "True".
>