On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains. You
>>>>>>>> are invited to find some domains where the halting problem is
>>>>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question: Can a
>>>>>> truth predicate exist that correctly answers the question, or is
>>>>>> Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>
>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WHERE?
>>
>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>
>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this sort
>> of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a formal
>> logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what things
>> actually mean.
>
> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
> make it true.
>

Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can be
formal - symbolic.
For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It doesn't
matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.

On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains. You
>>>>>>>>> are invited to find some domains where the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question: Can
>>>>>>> a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the question, or
>>>>>>> is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>
>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WHERE?
>>>
>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>
>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>> things actually mean.
>>
>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>> make it true.
>>
>
> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.

This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
as erroneous.

>
> This is especially obvious if the chain of links is infinite, as you
> can't step through the infinite chain in the required finite number of
> steps and be computable.
>
> So, it is clear that you don't understand something about this.
>
>

Not at all. The sum total of all analytic human knowledge
is computable. Expressions of language requiring infinite
steps are of little consequence.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 10:00 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains. You
>>>>>>> are invited to find some domains where the halting problem is
>>>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>
>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption, but
>>> keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>
>> You too are only playing head games.
>>
> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have only
> said you don't like the result.

That you failed to comprehend the mistake that I pointed
out is not any actual rebuttal.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/16/24 11:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains. You
>>>>>>>> are invited to find some domains where the halting problem is
>>>>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption, but
>>>> keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>>
>>> You too are only playing head games.
>>>
>> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have only
>> said you don't like the result.
>
> I have pointed out that he can't point out the mistakd he claims.
>
> HE claims that Tarski and Godel make incorrect statements, but can't
> actually point out where they make them.
>
> For Tarski, he points to a conclusion that is made from previous parts
> of the proof, and tries to say that the statement is non-sense, but
> can't show any actual error in the logic that got him there.
>
> For Godel, Godel makes an off-hand comment that the proof could be
> extended by using the form of other epistemological antinomies which PO
> assumes means that the truth of such an statement is critical to the
> proof. When asked to show where he actually did that, he can't.
>
> Thus, Peter's claim is the equivalent to Russel's teapot, that because
> the teapot exists, they must be wrong, but he can't actually show that
> the statements that would make them wrong actually exist in the proof.

You know that I pointed out the mistake
many hundreds of times WHY LIE ???

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains. You
>>>>>>>>> are invited to find some domains where the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question: Can
>>>>>>> a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the question, or
>>>>>>> is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>
>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WHERE?
>>>
>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>
>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>> things actually mean.
>>
>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>> make it true.
>>
>
> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can be
> formal - symbolic.
> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It doesn't
> matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.

Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>> is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question: Can
>>>>>>>> a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the question, or
>>>>>>>> is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHERE?
>>>>
>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>> things actually mean.
>>>
>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>> make it true.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can be
>> formal - symbolic.
>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It doesn't
>> matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>
> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>

A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.

On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>> is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question: Can
>>>>>>>> a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the question, or
>>>>>>>> is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHERE?
>>>>
>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>> things actually mean.
>>>
>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>> make it true.
>>>
>>
>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>
> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
> as erroneous.

There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.

On 17/02/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/24 11:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains. You
>>>>>>>>> are invited to find some domains where the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>> solvable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption, but
>>>>> keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>>>
>>>> You too are only playing head games.
>>>>
>>> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have
>>> only said you don't like the result.
>>
>> I have pointed out that he can't point out the mistakd he claims.
>>
>> HE claims that Tarski and Godel make incorrect statements, but can't
>> actually point out where they make them.
>>
>> For Tarski, he points to a conclusion that is made from previous parts
>> of the proof, and tries to say that the statement is non-sense, but
>> can't show any actual error in the logic that got him there.
>>
>> For Godel, Godel makes an off-hand comment that the proof could be
>> extended by using the form of other epistemological antinomies which
>> PO assumes means that the truth of such an statement is critical to
>> the proof. When asked to show where he actually did that, he can't.
>>
>> Thus, Peter's claim is the equivalent to Russel's teapot, that because
>> the teapot exists, they must be wrong, but he can't actually show that
>> the statements that would make them wrong actually exist in the proof.
>
> You know that I pointed out the mistake
> many hundreds of times WHY LIE ???
>
A conclusion which follows from true premises by a valid reasoning rule
must be true.

On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>>> things actually mean.
>>>>
>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>> make it true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can
>>> be formal - symbolic.
>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It doesn't
>>> matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>
>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>
>
> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.

That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
actual world.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>>> things actually mean.
>>>>
>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>> make it true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>
>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>> as erroneous.
>
> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.

Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 10:59 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/24 11:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>> is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption, but
>>>>>> keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>> You too are only playing head games.
>>>>>
>>>> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have
>>>> only said you don't like the result.
>>>
>>> I have pointed out that he can't point out the mistakd he claims.
>>>
>>> HE claims that Tarski and Godel make incorrect statements, but can't
>>> actually point out where they make them.
>>>
>>> For Tarski, he points to a conclusion that is made from previous
>>> parts of the proof, and tries to say that the statement is non-sense,
>>> but can't show any actual error in the logic that got him there.
>>>
>>> For Godel, Godel makes an off-hand comment that the proof could be
>>> extended by using the form of other epistemological antinomies which
>>> PO assumes means that the truth of such an statement is critical to
>>> the proof. When asked to show where he actually did that, he can't.
>>>
>>> Thus, Peter's claim is the equivalent to Russel's teapot, that
>>> because the teapot exists, they must be wrong, but he can't actually
>>> show that the statements that would make them wrong actually exist in
>>> the proof.
>>
>> You know that I pointed out the mistake
>> many hundreds of times WHY LIE ???
>>
> A conclusion which follows from true premises by a valid reasoning rule
> must be true.

OK you finally got an important one very right.
Good job !
How do you verify that the premises are true?

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 17/02/24 06:04, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>>>> things actually mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>>
>>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>>> as erroneous.
>>
>> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.
>
> Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.
>
You are the one who lacks knowledge. Logical formulas cannot be
semantically unsound because they do not have semantics. That is the
innovation of mathematics. It is like saying x+1=5 is unsound.

On 17/02/24 06:07, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/24 11:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>>>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption,
>>>>>>> but keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You too are only playing head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have
>>>>> only said you don't like the result.
>>>>
>>>> I have pointed out that he can't point out the mistakd he claims.
>>>>
>>>> HE claims that Tarski and Godel make incorrect statements, but can't
>>>> actually point out where they make them.
>>>>
>>>> For Tarski, he points to a conclusion that is made from previous
>>>> parts of the proof, and tries to say that the statement is
>>>> non-sense, but can't show any actual error in the logic that got him
>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> For Godel, Godel makes an off-hand comment that the proof could be
>>>> extended by using the form of other epistemological antinomies which
>>>> PO assumes means that the truth of such an statement is critical to
>>>> the proof. When asked to show where he actually did that, he can't.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, Peter's claim is the equivalent to Russel's teapot, that
>>>> because the teapot exists, they must be wrong, but he can't actually
>>>> show that the statements that would make them wrong actually exist
>>>> in the proof.
>>>
>>> You know that I pointed out the mistake
>>> many hundreds of times WHY LIE ???
>>>
>> A conclusion which follows from true premises by a valid reasoning
>> rule must be true.
>
> OK you finally got an important one very right.
> Good job !
> How do you verify that the premises are true?
>
How do YOU verify they are false?

On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>>>> things actually mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can
>>>> be formal - symbolic.
>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It doesn't
>>>> matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>
>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>
>>
>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>
> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
> actual world.
>
Mathematics does not care about the actual world.

On 2/17/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of what
>>>>>> things actually mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can
>>>> be formal - symbolic.
>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It doesn't
>>>> matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>
>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>
>>
>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>
> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
> actual world.
>

No, there may be only one model that matches what we know of the actual
world, but logic isn't restricted to talking about the actual world.

This seems to be part of your problem, you don't even know the use case
of logic.

On 2/17/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of
>>>>>>> what things actually mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can
>>>>> be formal - symbolic.
>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>
>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>
>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>> actual world.
>>
>
> No, there may be only one model that matches what we know of the actual
> world, but logic isn't restricted to talking about the actual world.
>

That some guy proposed possible worlds to cover hypothetical
possibilities means that they have diverged from truth.

> This seems to be part of your problem, you don't even know the use case
> of logic.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 11:56 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 06:04, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of
>>>>>>> what things actually mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>>>
>>>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>>>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>>>> as erroneous.
>>>
>>> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.
>>
>> Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.
>>
> You are the one who lacks knowledge. Logical formulas cannot be
> semantically unsound because they do not have semantics.

In other words you are saying that A ∧ B is meaningless gibberish.
Using Montague grammar of natural language semantics the full semantics
of natural language can be directly referenced by formalized natural
language expressions.

> That is the
> innovation of mathematics. It is like saying x+1=5 is unsound.

That Tarski anchored his undefinability theorem in the formalized
Liar Paradox proves that some formal expressions are unsound:
x ∉ True if and only if p

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 11:57 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 06:07, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/24 11:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>>>>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption,
>>>>>>>> but keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You too are only playing head games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have
>>>>>> only said you don't like the result.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have pointed out that he can't point out the mistakd he claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> HE claims that Tarski and Godel make incorrect statements, but
>>>>> can't actually point out where they make them.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Tarski, he points to a conclusion that is made from previous
>>>>> parts of the proof, and tries to say that the statement is
>>>>> non-sense, but can't show any actual error in the logic that got
>>>>> him there.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Godel, Godel makes an off-hand comment that the proof could be
>>>>> extended by using the form of other epistemological antinomies
>>>>> which PO assumes means that the truth of such an statement is
>>>>> critical to the proof. When asked to show where he actually did
>>>>> that, he can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, Peter's claim is the equivalent to Russel's teapot, that
>>>>> because the teapot exists, they must be wrong, but he can't
>>>>> actually show that the statements that would make them wrong
>>>>> actually exist in the proof.
>>>>
>>>> You know that I pointed out the mistake
>>>> many hundreds of times WHY LIE ???
>>>>
>>> A conclusion which follows from true premises by a valid reasoning
>>> rule must be true.
>>
>> OK you finally got an important one very right.
>> Good job !
>> How do you verify that the premises are true?
>>
> How do YOU verify they are false?

I know how I do it and I know how it is done.
No one seems to believe me even though it is the way
that truth really works.

When you must figure this out on your own then you can
see that my way is correct.

Unless you must figure this out on your own you seem to
continually baselessly disagree.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of this
>>>>>>> sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH is a
>>>>>>> formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are of
>>>>>>> what things actually mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps can
>>>>> be formal - symbolic.
>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>
>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>
>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>> actual world.
>>
> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.

This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of a
human mind.

Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/17/24 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>> actual world.
>>>
>>
>> No, there may be only one model that matches what we know of the
>> actual world, but logic isn't restricted to talking about the actual
>> world.
>>
>
> That some guy proposed possible worlds to cover hypothetical
> possibilities means that they have diverged from truth.

Nope, you just don't understand what ANALYTICAL truth is, which is wha
you claim to be talking about.

What matches the "Real World" is Emperical Truth.

You still don't seem to understand what the words you use mean.

If you start from "Truthmakers", you are talking about an Analytical
system based on what is assumed in that system, which may or may not
match "reality".

>
>> This seems to be part of your problem, you don't even know the use
>> case of logic.
>

On 2/17/24 10:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 11:56 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 06:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>>>>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>>>>> as erroneous.
>>>>
>>>> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.
>>>
>>> Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.
>>>
>> You are the one who lacks knowledge. Logical formulas cannot be
>> semantically unsound because they do not have semantics.
>
> In other words you are saying that A ∧ B is meaningless gibberish.
> Using Montague grammar of natural language semantics the full semantics
> of natural language can be directly referenced by formalized natural
> language expressions.

Which isn't "Formal Logic".

I guess you just don't know what "Logic" means.

>
>> That is the innovation of mathematics. It is like saying x+1=5 is
>> unsound.
>
> That Tarski anchored his undefinability theorem in the formalized
> Liar Paradox proves that some formal expressions are unsound:
> x ∉ True if and only if p
>

So, find the error in the work that produced that statement. The point
you quote it from refers to work he previously did.

If you can't, you can't make your claim.

On 2/17/24 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>
>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>> actual world.
>>>
>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>
> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of a
> human mind.
>
> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>

Which has WHAT to do with formal logic?

You don't seem to actually understand the basics of AI.

On 2/17/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 11:57 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 06:07, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:59 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 05:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 11:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are invited to find some domains where the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> you will continue to babble on with your false assumption
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That I am correct about Tarski established my credibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you misstate what Tarski said, prove your non-credibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You assume that I must be misstating Tarski on the basis
>>>>>>>>>> that I say that he is wrong and you assume that I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, because you can't point out where he makes his assumption,
>>>>>>>>> but keep on pointing at CONCLUSIONS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You too are only playing head games.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is right. You have not pointed to any actual mistake. You have
>>>>>>> only said you don't like the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have pointed out that he can't point out the mistakd he claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HE claims that Tarski and Godel make incorrect statements, but
>>>>>> can't actually point out where they make them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Tarski, he points to a conclusion that is made from previous
>>>>>> parts of the proof, and tries to say that the statement is
>>>>>> non-sense, but can't show any actual error in the logic that got
>>>>>> him there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Godel, Godel makes an off-hand comment that the proof could be
>>>>>> extended by using the form of other epistemological antinomies
>>>>>> which PO assumes means that the truth of such an statement is
>>>>>> critical to the proof. When asked to show where he actually did
>>>>>> that, he can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, Peter's claim is the equivalent to Russel's teapot, that
>>>>>> because the teapot exists, they must be wrong, but he can't
>>>>>> actually show that the statements that would make them wrong
>>>>>> actually exist in the proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know that I pointed out the mistake
>>>>> many hundreds of times WHY LIE ???
>>>>>
>>>> A conclusion which follows from true premises by a valid reasoning
>>>> rule must be true.
>>>
>>> OK you finally got an important one very right.
>>> Good job !
>>> How do you verify that the premises are true?
>>>
>> How do YOU verify they are false?
>
> I know how I do it and I know how it is done.
> No one seems to believe me even though it is the way
> that truth really works.

You THINK you know what you do, but it is clear you don't understand
what any of it actually means.

It is clear you just don't understand what TRUTH is, since you misuse
the term so much.

>
> When you must figure this out on your own then you can
> see that my way is correct.
>
> Unless you must figure this out on your own you seem to
> continually baselessly disagree.
>

Until you understand what the words you are saying actually mean, your
statements are just gibberish nonsense, and become lies.

On 17/02/24 16:27, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 11:56 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 06:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>>>>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>>>>> as erroneous.
>>>>
>>>> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.
>>>
>>> Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.
>>>
>> You are the one who lacks knowledge. Logical formulas cannot be
>> semantically unsound because they do not have semantics.
>
> In other words you are saying that A ∧ B is meaningless gibberish.

Yes, that's the innovation of mathematics. x+y=4 is meaningless
gibberish but you can still do something with it. If you apply
mathematical rules to the sentences x=1 and x+y=4 you can get other
meaningless gibberish like (x+y)^3=64 and y=3.

"formal" comes from the root "form", meaning "appearance". You can
manipulate mathematical expressions based on just their appearance. You
do not have to know that x is the number of cows that Alice has and y is
the number of cows that Joey has. It is still the case that (x+y)^3=64.

> Using Montague grammar of natural language semantics the full semantics
> of natural language can be directly referenced by formalized natural
> language expressions.

Montague grammar attempts to translate natural language into
mathematics. For sentences already in mathematics there it is irrelevant.

> That Tarski anchored his undefinability theorem in the formalized
> Liar Paradox proves that some formal expressions are unsound:

The Liar Paradox cannot be formalized.

On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>
>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>> actual world.
>>>
>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>
> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of a
> human mind.
>
> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>

This is irrelevant to the halting problem.