On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and
>>>>>>>>> I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement
>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement
>>>>>> with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous
>>>>>> problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it
>>>>>> requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
>>>>>> something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone
>>>>>> who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A
>>>>>> lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the
>>>>>> intention that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg
>>>>>> 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be
>>>>>> false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true”
>>>>>> (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the
>>>>>> addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there
>>>>>> are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
>>>>>> false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
>>>>>> (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to
>>>>>> deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify that
>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>
>>
>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>> true in all possible worlds.
>>
>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number of
>>>>> times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a suitable
>>>>> stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>> proves
>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>
>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but then
>>> try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding that
>>> you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows that you
>>> don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>
>>
>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>> aspects that I refer to.
>>
>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>> terminology.
>>
>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>
>>
>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am saying.
>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>> rebuttal at all.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of insanity,
>>>>> make that plea, but that just becomes an admission that you are a
>>>>> pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you that
>>> you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been proven
>>> incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>
>>
>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a semantic
>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>> tautology.
>
> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>

In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20a%20formula%20is,are%20known%20formally%20as%20contradictions.

What I actually mean is analytic truth, yet math people will have no
clue about this because all of math is syntactic rather than semantic.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Because of this I coined my own term [semantic tautology] as the most
self-descriptive term that I could find as a place-holder for my notion.

> The COMMON definition is "the saying of the same thing twice in
> different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they
> arrived one after the other in succession)".
>
> The Meaning in the fielc of Logic is "In mathematical logic, a tautology
> (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every
> possible interpretation."
>
> So, neither of them point to the meaning of the words.
>

Did I say that I am limiting the application [semantic tautology] to words?

When dealing with logic a [semantic tautology] may simply be a
tautology(logic). When dealing with formalized natural language it may
be more clear to refer to it as as [semantic tautology] in that the
semantic meaning of natural language expression are formalized as
axioms.

> If you are just making up words, you are admitting you have lost from
> the start.
>
> The problem is that word meanings, especially for "natural" language are
> to ill defined to be used to form the basis of formal logic. You need to

Not when natural language is formalized.
Semantic Grammar and the Power of Computational Language

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/

> work with FORMAL definitions, which become part of the Truth Makers of
> the system. At that point, either you semantic tautologies are real
> tautologies because they are alway true in every model, or they are not
> tautologies.
>

Cats are animals in the currently existing model of the world, Cats may
not exist in other possible worlds. [semantic tautology] applies with a
model of the world.

>>
>> Cats are animals is necessarily true even if no cats ever physically
>> existed.
>
> Nope. If cats don't exist in the system, the statement is not
> necessarily true. For instance, the statement is NOT true in the system
> of the Natural Numbers.
>

Cats are animals at the semantic level in the current model of the
world. The model of the world has GUID placeholders for the notion of
{cats} and {animals} and for every other unique sense meaning.

>>
>>> Also, I am not "ignorant", since that means not having knowledge or
>>> awareness of something, but I do understand what you are saying and
>>> aware of your ideas, AND I POINT OUT YOUR ERRORS.
>>
>> Until you fully understand what a semantic tautology is and why it is
>> necessarily true you remain sufficiently ignorant.
>
> As far as you have explained, it is an illogical concept based on
> undefined grounds. You refuse to state whether your "semantic" is "by
> the meaning of the words" at which point you need understand that either

When I refer to {semantic} and don't restrict this to the meaning of
words then it applies to every formal language expression, natural
language expression and formalized natural language expression.

That you assume otherwise is your mistake.

> you are using the "natural" meaning and break the rules of formal logic,
> or you mean the formal meaning within the system, at which point what is
> the difference between your "semantic" connections as you define them
> and the classical meaning of semantic being related to showable by a
> chain of connections to the truth makers of the system.
>

We don't need to formalize the notions of {cats} and {animals} to know
that cats <are> animals according to the meaning of those terms.

> Note, if you take that later definition, then either you need to cripple
> the logic you allow or the implication operator and the principle of
> explosion both exist in your system. (If you don't define the
> implication operator as a base operation,

I have already said quite a few times that I am probably replacing the
implication operator with the Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□

That you can't seem to remember key points that I make and repeat many
times is very annoying.

> but do include "not", "and"
> and "or" as operation, it can just be defined in the system).
>
>>
>>> YOU are the ignorant one, as you don't seem to understand enough to
>>> even comment about the rebutalls to your claims.
>>>
>>> THAT show ignorance, and stupidity.
>>
>

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