Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
with olcott. Epirical evidence suggests that
this program would never halt, at least until the
heat death of the universe.

- Dan C.

On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
> with olcott. Epirical evidence suggests that
> this program would never halt, at least until the
> heat death of the universe.
>
> - Dan C.
>

*I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically invalid input.

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

On 02/23/2024 09:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
> with olcott. Epirical evidence suggests that
> this program would never halt, at least until the
> heat death of the universe.
>
> - Dan C.
>

But, what about cold death?

I feel like I learned through a a lucky lens,
from when computers were monumental or trivial,
from the calculator watch to the 486,
with the modem coupler to co-ax to fiber,
though the keyboard's still quite qwerty,
the mouse has a scroll wheel,
long ago we had kaypro drawing pads,
and digitizers and the paddles of pong,
which once itself was entirely analog,
some few electrical components what
resulted making a UHF 2/3 and hours of fun.

These days it's often more about "the giant
naming directory", "the project umbrella",
"the big associative mapping of names to
numbers and the convention where it all
lines up", that never will or always wil shift a bit,
the "eventually consistent horizontally scalable
self-healing managed services as a service with
build-time coverage and static analysis and
run-time coverage and metrics, monitors,
alerts, and alarms". Protocols, protocols,
protocols, but this is just a corner of computer theory
called "distributed services".

I don't know much to be said about the superscalar,
the idea that the computer's word is arbitrarily large,
though I know that SIMD, makes all sorts of linear speedups,
with regards to "the embarrassment of riches of computing
resources".

The theory here I suggest these days, is that for the models
of computation, like automata or the moving tape-head,
have that for something like "asymptotic behaviors of
computing as continuous", that, there must be something
what mathematics offers, about the asymptotic, that makes
for as natural a model of computing, as to arrive at that
there are concrete reasons, and by concrete I mean concrete,
to reflect "the theory of all programs", that there are various
theories where all, none, or half: halt.

(Or you know, "almost everywhere", "a.e.", do, or don't.)

The best way to deal with such matters seems to be
to fill the channel as if with news.

So, here, for Turing, Rice, then Knuth, Chaitin, or
for asymptotics that run out
and asymptotics that complete,
is an idea to open a dialog on "interesting things
for the theory, of computing", while it's so difficult
as it ever was, to be a real or manly programmer.

So, for the theory, of computing,for Halts, catalog to
closed categories the worlds of programs that do,
don't, or don't-know halt, then while Turing and Rice
or Church/Rice have sort of fixed themselves to "don't know",
the other ones sort of result "will do".

(About trolls, the idea is sort of that
if you cut a tree, plant a tree, that kind
of idea, "keep the balance", when kicking
a troll, loft the gentle readers, this kind of bit.)

Here then I hope this idea of "computing theory as
a theory instead of a computing", gives some interesting
ideas, about that it can be contrived, the world of
the languages and the formal languages the accepters
and rejectors and formal automata, the theory,
what results a theory that computes, and that
computing is a theory.

On 02/23/2024 10:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/23/2024 09:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>> with olcott. Epirical evidence suggests that
>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>> heat death of the universe.
>>
>> - Dan C.
>>
>
> But, what about cold death?
>
>
>
>
> I feel like I learned through a a lucky lens,
> from when computers were monumental or trivial,
> from the calculator watch to the 486,
> with the modem coupler to co-ax to fiber,
> though the keyboard's still quite qwerty,
> the mouse has a scroll wheel,
> long ago we had kaypro drawing pads,
> and digitizers and the paddles of pong,
> which once itself was entirely analog,
> some few electrical components what
> resulted making a UHF 2/3 and hours of fun.
>
> These days it's often more about "the giant
> naming directory", "the project umbrella",
> "the big associative mapping of names to
> numbers and the convention where it all
> lines up", that never will or always wil shift a bit,
> the "eventually consistent horizontally scalable
> self-healing managed services as a service with
> build-time coverage and static analysis and
> run-time coverage and metrics, monitors,
> alerts, and alarms". Protocols, protocols,
> protocols, but this is just a corner of computer theory
> called "distributed services".
>
> I don't know much to be said about the superscalar,
> the idea that the computer's word is arbitrarily large,
> though I know that SIMD, makes all sorts of linear speedups,
> with regards to "the embarrassment of riches of computing
> resources".
>
> The theory here I suggest these days, is that for the models
> of computation, like automata or the moving tape-head,
> have that for something like "asymptotic behaviors of
> computing as continuous", that, there must be something
> what mathematics offers, about the asymptotic, that makes
> for as natural a model of computing, as to arrive at that
> there are concrete reasons, and by concrete I mean concrete,
> to reflect "the theory of all programs", that there are various
> theories where all, none, or half: halt.
>
> (Or you know, "almost everywhere", "a.e.", do, or don't.)
>
>
> The best way to deal with such matters seems to be
> to fill the channel as if with news.
>
> So, here, for Turing, Rice, then Knuth, Chaitin, or
> for asymptotics that run out
> and asymptotics that complete,
> is an idea to open a dialog on "interesting things
> for the theory, of computing", while it's so difficult
> as it ever was, to be a real or manly programmer.
>
> So, for the theory, of computing,for Halts, catalog to
> closed categories the worlds of programs that do,
> don't, or don't-know halt, then while Turing and Rice
> or Church/Rice have sort of fixed themselves to "don't know",
> the other ones sort of result "will do".
>
>
>
> (About trolls, the idea is sort of that
> if you cut a tree, plant a tree, that kind
> of idea, "keep the balance", when kicking
> a troll, loft the gentle readers, this kind of bit.)
>
> Here then I hope this idea of "computing theory as
> a theory instead of a computing", gives some interesting
> ideas, about that it can be contrived, the world of
> the languages and the formal languages the accepters
> and rejectors and formal automata, the theory,
> what results a theory that computes, and that
> computing is a theory.
>
>

There isn't often a cultural reference that's
usually part of the culture, yet here there's a
notion that there's a sort of topical model of
theory, a theory, ....

This is that Anne Elk's, theory, of brontosauruses,
is a theory, that's, hers, ..., that generally applies
to theories.

It's sort of an offshoot of some philosophy students
who went into entertainment, with regards to the
Philosopher's Football, which is soccer, and these
kinds of things.

So here, brontosauruses, are thin at one end,
very, very thick in the middle, then thin again
at the other end.

Here it's that asymptotics and the concrete,
have geometrizations for continuum mechanics,
that after Ramsey theory and the quasi-invariant
in measure theory, get into the continuous and discrete
and the analog and the digital, with regards to
usually enough the notion of a wave as a model
of action in an open system, make for that "computing
theory", for formal methods and the like, make for the
notions of "digitalizations" to go along with, "arithmetizations",
and "algebraizations" and "geometrizations", the relations
of models of theories of things to well-known things from
the universe of mathematical objects.

So, introducing this term, "digitalization", is to reflect
the bounds and that the finite is not complete that
though it does have its completeness results after
Goedel and before Goedel's incompleteness, to
help reflect this "continuous topology" then as
that's of the least "tenuous topology" then for
that the usual "torsional topology" makes a reflection
on algebraization, of words, and algebraization, of numbers,
for the "digitalization" or words, in theory.

It's thick in the middle but pretty slim either end, ....

"Digital topology", ....

On 23/02/24 18:16, Dan Cross wrote:
> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
> with olcott. Epirical evidence suggests that
> this program would never halt, at least until the
> heat death of the universe.
>
> - Dan C.
>

It's 2024. Why use such ancient technology when you could devote a whole
GPU to running a state-of-the-art open LLM?

Bonus if you train it on olcott's previous posts.

On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
> with olcott. Epirical evidence suggests that
> this program would never halt, at least until the
> heat death of the universe.
>
> - Dan C.
>

That is not the way that these work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain

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

On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>> heat death of the universe.
>>
>>     - Dan C.
>>
>
> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically invalid input.
>

Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.

NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).

Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
"rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.

That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.

It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.

On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>
>>>     - Dan C.
>>>
>>
>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically invalid
>> input.
>>
>
> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>
> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>
> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>
> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>
> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.

That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.

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

On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>
>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically invalid
>>> input.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>
>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>
>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>
>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>
>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>
> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>

Why have you had to do that?

That is the way it has always been.

I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.

On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically invalid
>>>> input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>
>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>
>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>
>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>
>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>
>
> Why have you had to do that?
>
> That is the way it has always been.
>
> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.

That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
right here years ago.

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

On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically invalid
>>>>> input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>
>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>
>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>
>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>
>>
>> Why have you had to do that?
>>
>> That is the way it has always been.
>>
>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>
> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
> right here years ago.
>

Nope, lets take it step by step.

True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a truth
value.

Correct?

On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate,
>>>>> get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>
>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>
>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>
>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>
>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>> right here years ago.
>>
>
> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>
> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a truth
> value.
>
> Correct?
Yes and I quoted your original words

*This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
*predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*

On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>
> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>
> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.

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

On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate,
>>>>>> get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>
>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>
>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>
>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>> right here years ago.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>
>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
>> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a truth
>> value.
>>
>> Correct?
> Yes and I quoted your original words
>
> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>
> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
> >
> > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
> >
> > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>

So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a negation
predicate) so is the statemetment:

Not True(L: S)

Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.

Right?

On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate,
>>>>>>> get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>
>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>
>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
>>> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a
>>> truth value.
>>>
>>> Correct?
>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>
>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>
>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>  >
>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>  >
>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>
>
> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a negation
> predicate) so is the statemetment:
>
> Not True(L: S)
>
> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.
>
> Right?

Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.

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

On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate,
>>>>>>>> get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>
>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
>>>> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a
>>>> truth value.
>>>>
>>>> Correct?
>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>
>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>  >
>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>  >
>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>
>>
>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a negation
>> predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>
>> Not True(L: S)
>>
>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.
>>
>> Right?
>
>
> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>

Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.

But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the system,
and will have the value of True if S is a False statement, or is
non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.

Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you recognize
that you are trapped and your logic broken.

On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>
>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
>>>>> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a
>>>>> truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct?
>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>
>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>
>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>
>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>
>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.
>>>
>>> Right?
>>
>>
>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>
>
> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.

*That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.

> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the system,
> and will have the value of True if S is a False statement, or is
> non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>

Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
years ago as documented in these forums.

> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you recognize
> that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>

My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
and consistent truth predicate.

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

On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns
>>>>>>>>>> FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
>>>>>> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a
>>>>>> truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate,
>>>>> get
>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>
>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>
>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.
>>>>
>>>> Right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>
> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>
>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False statement, or
>> is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>
>
> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
> years ago as documented in these forums.
>
>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>
>
> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
> and consistent truth predicate.
>

So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then what
if we define S to be it.

So we have the statement:

S: ~True(L: S)

What is its truth value?

We know it must be True or False, and not "Not a truth value" from above.

If S is True, then True(L: S) is True, and ~True is False, so S can't be
true

If S is False, then True(L: S) is False, and ~False is True, so S can't
be false.

Thus S can't actually exist as a statement in L.

The ONLY thing we did that was at all questionable, was to assume that
True(L: S) existed as a predicate.

Thus, this must not be true.

We might be able to have a almost-predicate True(L: S) that gives an
correct answer for most inputs, but we can not have one, in L, that gies
all the answers, all the time.

That is Tarski's proof.

On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns
>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a True
>>>>>>> statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't have a
>>>>>>> truth value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>
>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>
>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False statement, or
>>> is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>
>>
>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>
>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>
>>
>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>
>
> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then what
> if we define S to be it.
>

Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
bearer. False assumptions have no power.

> So we have the statement:
>
> S: ~True(L: S)
>
> What is its truth value?

False indicates that S is an Epistemological antinomy.

True means that S has the property and False means that
S does not have the property or there is something wrong with S.

>
> We know it must be True or False, and not "Not a truth value" from above.
>
> If S is True, then True(L: S) is True, and ~True is False, so S can't be
> true
>
> If S is False, then True(L: S) is False, and ~False is True, so S can't
> be false.
>
> Thus S can't actually exist as a statement in L.
>
> The ONLY thing we did that was at all questionable, was to assume that
> True(L: S) existed as a predicate.
>
> Thus, this must not be true.
>
> We might be able to have a almost-predicate True(L: S) that gives an
> correct answer for most inputs, but we can not have one, in L, that gies
> all the answers, all the time.
>
> That is Tarski's proof.

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

On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as semantically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns
>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't
>>>>>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>
>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>
>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False statement,
>>>> or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>
>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>
>>
>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
>> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then
>> what if we define S to be it.
>>
>
> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
> bearer. False assumptions have no power.

If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L: S)
is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.

Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.

True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some inputs,
it is not a truth bearer.

>
>> So we have the statement:
>>
>> S: ~True(L: S)
>>
>> What is its truth value?
>
> False indicates that S is an Epistemological antinomy.

But if S is false, then True(L: S) is false (By definition), and thus
~Tru (by definition)e(L: S) is True, which is not false, so this can not
be the case.

>
> True means that S has the property and False means that
> S does not have the property or there is something wrong with S.

Right. and either answer is wrong, so True(L: S) can not exist as a
universal predicate in L.

>
>>
>> We know it must be True or False, and not "Not a truth value" from above.
>>
>> If S is True, then True(L: S) is True, and ~True is False, so S can't
>> be true
>>
>> If S is False, then True(L: S) is False, and ~False is True, so S
>> can't be false.
>>
>> Thus S can't actually exist as a statement in L.
>>
>> The ONLY thing we did that was at all questionable, was to assume that
>> True(L: S) existed as a predicate.
>>
>> Thus, this must not be true.
>>
>> We might be able to have a almost-predicate True(L: S) that gives an
>> correct answer for most inputs, but we can not have one, in L, that
>> gies all the answers, all the time.
>>
>> That is Tarski's proof.
>

On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't
>>>>>>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>
>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>
>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False statement,
>>>>> or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>
>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
>>> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then
>>> what if we define S to be it.
>>>
>>
>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>
> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L: S)
> is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>
> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>
> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some inputs,
> it is not a truth bearer.

True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
use your version of my idea from years ago.

On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>
> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>
> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.

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

On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False statement,
>>>>>> or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
>>>> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then
>>>> what if we define S to be it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>
>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L:
>> S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>
>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>>
>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some inputs,
>> it is not a truth bearer.
>
> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
> use your version of my idea from years ago.

On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't
>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False statement,
>>>>>> or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
>>>> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then
>>>> what if we define S to be it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>
>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L:
>> S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>
>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>>
>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some inputs,
>> it is not a truth bearer.
>
> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>
> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
> > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
> >
> > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
> >
> > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>

On 2/24/2024 12:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False
>>>>>>> statement, or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
>>>>> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then
>>>>> what if we define S to be it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>>
>>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L:
>>> S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>>
>>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>>>
>>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some
>>> inputs, it is not a truth bearer.
>>
>> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
>> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>
> Nope.
>

On 2/24/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S is
>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False
>>>>>>> statement, or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has a
>>>>> truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer) then
>>>>> what if we define S to be it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>>
>>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L:
>>> S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>>
>>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>>>
>>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some
>>> inputs, it is not a truth bearer.
>>
>> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
>> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>>
>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>  >
>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>  >
>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> In L: S: ~True(L: S) shows that if True(L: S) decides that S is an
> Epistemological Antinomy and returns false, then S is actually True, and
> thus NOT an Epistemological Antinomy, as they are neither True or False.

On 2/24/24 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S
>>>>>>>>>> is True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in the
>>>>>>>> system, and will have the value of True if S is a False
>>>>>>>> statement, or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has
>>>>>> a truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer)
>>>>>> then what if we define S to be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>>>
>>>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then True(L:
>>>> S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>>>
>>>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some
>>>> inputs, it is not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
>>> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>  >
>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>  >
>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> In L: S: ~True(L: S) shows that if True(L: S) decides that S is an
>> Epistemological Antinomy and returns false, then S is actually True,
>> and thus NOT an Epistemological Antinomy, as they are neither True or
>> False.
>
> "This sentence is not true."
> is not true and an Epistemological Antinomy, thus remains not
> true even though it claims to be not true and this claim has been met.
>