On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>
>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the English.
>>>>
>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>
>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my English]
>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my Chinese]."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>
>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>
>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>> how any of it works.
>>
>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>
> **Like you are doing**
>
>>
>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>> reason that it is an error.
>>
>>
>
> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>
> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is True
> or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition existed,
> then from that definition you could prove in the defined Meta-Theory
> that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
That is not what he is saying, try again.

>
> Thus, since we know that can't be, there must not be an ability to
> define in a system of logic, a "Definition of Truth" that allows you to
> determine (i.e. Proof) every True Statement, Disprove every false
> statement, and determine that every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>
>
> What else do you think he is saying?

"sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory"

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/31/22 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>
>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>> English.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>
>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>> English]
>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my Chinese]."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>>
>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>>> how any of it works.
>>>
>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>
>> **Like you are doing**
>>
>>>
>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>
>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>
>
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
> That is not what he is saying, try again.

Like you just said, even an idiot can just claim something is wrong.

Note, since you aren't even showing the full chapter (which likely would
be a copyright violation) its hard to get the full context of his
statements, but thesse pages are

>
>>
>> Thus, since we know that can't be, there must not be an ability to
>> define in a system of logic, a "Definition of Truth" that allows you
>> to determine (i.e. Proof) every True Statement, Disprove every false
>> statement, and determine that every non-truthbearer was a
>> non-truthbearer.
>>
>>
>> What else do you think he is saying?
>
>   "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
>    becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory"
>
>

ACCORDING TO THESIS A, this isn't neccesarily true if Thesis A isn't
True. In fact, I suspect this whole section is building up to showing
this leads to a contradiction, and thus THESIS A isn't True.

Remeber, at the end he says:

I should like to draw attention here to an analogous result. For every
deductive science in "Which arithmetic is contained it is possible to
specify arithmetical notions which, so to speak, belong intuitively to
this science, but ,vhich cannot be defined on the basis of this science.
'Vith the help of methods which are, completely analogous to those used
in the copstruction of the definition of truth, it is nevertheless
possible to show that these concepts can be so defined provided the
science is enriched by the introduction of variables of higher order.

Which points out that IN THE THEORY, there are things which can not be
defined, but need to be expressed in a higher order Theory (the Meta Theory)

By extension, there will be things in the Meta-Theory which can not be
defined, but need to be expressed in an even HIGHER order Theory (a
Meta-Meta-Theory) and so on.

Thus in any Theory, or Meta^n Theory, there will ALWAYS be things that
can not be defined.

You don't seem to understand how proof by contradiction works, because
you mind is too simple.

On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>
>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the English.
>>>>
>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>
>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my English]
>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my Chinese]."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>
>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>
>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>> how any of it works.
>>
>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>
> **Like you are doing**
>
>>
>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>> reason that it is an error.
>>
>>
>
> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>
> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is True
> or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition existed,
> then from that definition you could prove in the defined Meta-Theory
> that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>

No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.

This sentence is true:
{The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}

> Thus, since we know that can't be,

Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely on the
basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to these
semantic meanings.

If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves that
I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
makers.

Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker semantic
connections.

This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous truth
objects: "This sentence is true"

True about what?
True about being true.
True about being true about what?
True about being true about being true.

Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never resolved
to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.

> there must not be an ability to
> define in a system of logic, a "Definition of Truth" that allows you to
> determine (i.e. Proof) every True Statement, Disprove every false
> statement, and determine that every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>

The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.

The Goldbach Conjecture has a currently unknown Boolean value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
It does seem to be a truth bearer.

Analytic Knowledge is defined as expressions of language that have a
finite set of connections to their truth maker semantic meanings.

Analytic Truth is defined as expressions of language that have a finite
or infinite set of connections to their truth maker semantic meanings.

Non Truth Bearers are defined as expressions of language having no
connections to any truth maker semantic meanings.

>
> What else do you think he is saying?

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>
>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>> English.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>
>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>> English]
>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my Chinese]."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>>
>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>>> how any of it works.
>>>
>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>
>> **Like you are doing**
>>
>>>
>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>
>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>>
>
> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.

Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.

He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
"proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
assumed Thesis must be false.

>
> This sentence is true:
> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>
>
>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>
> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely on the
> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to these
> semantic meanings.

No one is arguing that.

>
> If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves that
> I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
> makers.

Right, but that doesn't make it PROVABLE by the definition of Provable.

>
> Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker semantic
> connections.
>
> This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous truth
> objects: "This sentence is true"
>
> True about what?
> True about being true.
> True about being true about what?
> True about being true about being true.
>
> Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never resolved
> to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.

>
>> there must not be an ability to define in a system of logic, a
>> "Definition of Truth" that allows you to determine (i.e. Proof) every
>> True Statement, Disprove every false statement, and determine that
>> every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>>
>
> The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
> expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
> We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.

Right, its value is unknown in that Thoery, and thus unprovable in that
theory. A Meta-Theory may be able to show that it actually IS true in
that theory, and thus we have in the Theory a statment that actually is
True (but not KNOWN to be true in the Theory) that is unprovable.

>
> The Goldbach Conjecture has a currently unknown Boolean value.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> It does seem to be a truth bearer.
>

it MUST be a Truth Bearer, as either a number exists that breaks the
rule, or no such number exist.

> Analytic Knowledge is defined as expressions of language that have a
> finite set of connections to their truth maker semantic meanings.
>
> Analytic Truth is defined as expressions of language that have a finite
> or infinite set of connections to their truth maker semantic meanings.

Right, so some Truths will be not knownable, and thus not Provable.

>
> Non Truth Bearers are defined as expressions of language having no
> connections to any truth maker semantic meanings.
>
>>
>> What else do you think he is saying?
>

So, your claim that All Truth is PROVABLE is refuted.

Godel incompleteness Theory is Confirm, as is Tarski theory of no
"Definition" of Truth.

(Perhaps you don't undestand what he means by that)

On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>>>> how any of it works.
>>>>
>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>
>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>
>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>>>
>>
>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>
>
> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>

You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
your reference.

I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would understand
that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have explicitly
stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".

> He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
> "proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
> assumed Thesis must be false.

The way that Tarski said it: "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
in his theory and true in his meta-theory.

He never realized that what he really meant is that this sentence is not
true in his theory: "This sentence is not true"

and this sentence is true in his meta-theory:
{This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"}

>>
>> This sentence is true:
>> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>>
>>
>>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>>
>> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely on the
>> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to these
>> semantic meanings.
>
> No one is arguing that.

Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.

Every logic system only has expressions of language that are {true,
false} or are not members of this formal system.

>>
>> If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves that
>> I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
>> makers.
>
> Right, but that doesn't make it PROVABLE by the definition of Provable.
>

Every element of the set of analytic knowledge is provable and the
remaining elements of the set of analytic truth have unknown truth
values.

>>
>> Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker semantic
>> connections.
>>
>> This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous truth
>> objects: "This sentence is true"
>>
>> True about what?
>> True about being true.
>> True about being true about what?
>> True about being true about being true.
>>
>> Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never resolved
>> to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.
>
>
>
>>
>>> there must not be an ability to define in a system of logic, a
>>> "Definition of Truth" that allows you to determine (i.e. Proof) every
>>> True Statement, Disprove every false statement, and determine that
>>> every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>>>
>>
>> The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
>> expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
>> We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.
>
> Right, its value is unknown in that Thoery, and thus unprovable in that
> theory. A Meta-Theory may be able to show that it actually IS  true in
> that theory, and thus we have in the Theory a statment that actually is
> True (but not KNOWN to be true in the Theory) that is unprovable.
>

The correct "theory" of the set of analytic truth allows any order of
reference from 0th order logic no N-ary logic.

As Wittgenstein said true in a formal system means has been proved in
this formal system and false in this formal system means that the
opposite has been proved in this formal system.

Expressions of language currently having unknown truth values that
require infinite proofs are by definition not part of any formal system.

>>
>> The Goldbach Conjecture has a currently unknown Boolean value.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>> It does seem to be a truth bearer.
>>
>
> it MUST be a Truth Bearer, as either a number exists that breaks the
> rule, or no such number exist.
>

Yes I agree, that is what I said.

>> Analytic Knowledge is defined as expressions of language that have a
>> finite set of connections to their truth maker semantic meanings.
>>
>> Analytic Truth is defined as expressions of language that have a finite
>> or infinite set of connections to their truth maker semantic meanings.
>
> Right, so some Truths will be not knownable, and thus not Provable.
>

And also not part of any formal system.

>>
>> Non Truth Bearers are defined as expressions of language having no
>> connections to any truth maker semantic meanings.
>>
>>>
>>> What else do you think he is saying?
>>
>
> So, your claim that All Truth is PROVABLE is refuted.

I did not know that infinite proofs are not allowed.

What I meant was that every analytically true expression of language
must have a connection to its truth maker set of semantic meanings or it
is untrue. This connection is the proof of its truth.

>
> Godel incompleteness Theory is Confirm, as is Tarski theory of no
> "Definition" of Truth.
>
> (Perhaps you don't undestand what he means by that)

Both of these are only anchored in "epistemological antinomies" (self-
contradictory expressions) and thus both of these fail when these
expressions are rejected as not members of any formal system.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>
>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>>
>>
>> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>>
>
> You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
> your reference.

I did.

>
> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would understand
> that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have explicitly
> stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".

He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that assumption)
that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is impossible for there to
be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.

What don't YOU understand about that statement?

>
>> He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
>> "proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
>> assumed Thesis must be false.
>
> The way that Tarski said it: "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
> in his theory and true in his meta-theory.

BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THESIS A.

Thus, THESIS A can't be true.

>
> He never realized that what he really meant is that this sentence is not
> true in his theory: "This sentence is not true"
>
> and this sentence is true in his meta-theory:
> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"}

Nope, that ISN'T what he is talking about. You just are not
understanding his words.

You have shown enough misundetandings, the most like cause of any
disagreement between you and a respected logictian is that you don't
actually understand what he is saying.

This is also a natural outcome of your MISAPPLICATION of the concept of
"First Principles".

>
>>>
>>> This sentence is true:
>>> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>>>
>>> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely on the
>>> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to these
>>> semantic meanings.
>>
>> No one is arguing that.
>
> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.

No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the Liar Paracos is
simply not a Truth Bearer.

Things like tertiary Logic are attempts to expand the logic system to
see if a system of logic could handle it.

You DO understand the concepts of differing systems of logic with
different ground rules, don't you?

Maybe you don't as that concept breaks you idea of an overarching
Meta-system that all logic falls under.

>
> Every logic system only has expressions of language that are {true,
> false} or are not members of this formal system.

Note members of THIS group of formal systems.

Other formal systems have other values in their logic.

>
>>>
>>> If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves that
>>> I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
>>> makers.
>>
>> Right, but that doesn't make it PROVABLE by the definition of Provable.
>>
>
> Every element of the set of analytic knowledge is provable and the
> remaining elements of the set of analytic truth have unknown truth
> values.

Yes, KNOWLEDGE is Provavle.

TRUTH is not necessarily, as it may have an infinite set of connections,
which makes it outside the normal definition of Knowable.

>
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker
>>> semantic connections.
>>>
>>> This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous truth
>>> objects: "This sentence is true"
>>>
>>> True about what?
>>> True about being true.
>>> True about being true about what?
>>> True about being true about being true.
>>>
>>> Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never resolved
>>> to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> there must not be an ability to define in a system of logic, a
>>>> "Definition of Truth" that allows you to determine (i.e. Proof)
>>>> every True Statement, Disprove every false statement, and determine
>>>> that every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
>>> expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
>>> We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.
>>
>> Right, its value is unknown in that Thoery, and thus unprovable in
>> that theory. A Meta-Theory may be able to show that it actually IS
>> true in that theory, and thus we have in the Theory a statment that
>> actually is True (but not KNOWN to be true in the Theory) that is
>> unprovable.
>>
>
> The correct "theory" of the set of analytic truth allows any order of
> reference from 0th order logic no N-ary logic.
>
> As Wittgenstein said true in a formal system means has been proved in
> this formal system and false in this formal system means that the
> opposite has been proved in this formal system.

On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>
>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the English.
>>>>
>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>
>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my English]
>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my Chinese]."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>
>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>
>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>> how any of it works.
>>
>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>
> **Like you are doing**
>
>>
>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>> reason that it is an error.
>>
>>
>
> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>
> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is True
> or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition existed,
He does not use the term "truth bearer". Please cite word-for-word what
he said and the page number of the book where he said it.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you
>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>>
>>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually
>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>>>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>>>
>>
>> You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
>> your reference.
>
> I did.
>
>>
>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would understand
>> that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have explicitly
>> stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>
> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that assumption)
> that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is impossible for there to
> be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>

He never said anything like that.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/23 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>
>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>> English.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>
>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>> English]
>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my Chinese]."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>>
>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>>> how any of it works.
>>>
>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>
>> **Like you are doing**
>>
>>>
>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>
>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>> existed,
> He does not use the term "truth bearer". Please cite word-for-word what
> he said and the page number of the book where he said it.
>

Sorry, I don't have his book, but am going off of the general principles
I know of what he has done.

He also might not use that exact term, but others that express the same
meaning.

You are just proving your stupidity, as you claim errors for people that
they do not make.

YOU make plenty of errors, as you show yourself incapable of performing
basic logic.

You have yet to point out which line of the actual proof of any of the
proofs you object to that has a demonstratable logical error.

Until you do that, your claim that they made a mistake is not established.

All you have done is to disagree with their conclusion, so you claim
they must have made a mistake.

By THAT logic, YOU MUST have made a mistake too, as your conclusing
disagree with the proven theory.

YOU FAIL.

On 1/1/23 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>
>>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would
>>> understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have
>>> explicitly stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>>
>> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
>> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
>> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that assumption)
>> that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is impossible for there
>> to be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>>
>
> He never said anything like that.
>

Yes, that is the whole basis of his proof.

You just don't understand it because it seems you haven't actually read
his proof, just his sketch of the proof.

On 1/1/2023 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>>>> how any of it works.
>>>>
>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>
>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>
>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>> existed,
>> He does not use the term "truth bearer". Please cite word-for-word
>> what he said and the page number of the book where he said it.
>>
>
> Sorry, I don't have his book, but am going off of the general principles
> I know of what he has done.
>
OK so you did not can cannot support your claim, thus your claim is
rejected as baseless.

Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/2023 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would
>>>> understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would
>>>> have explicitly stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>>>
>>> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
>>> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
>>> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that
>>> assumption) that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is
>>> impossible for there to be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>>>
>>
>> He never said anything like that.
>>
>
> Yes, that is the whole basis of his proof.
>
> You just don't understand it because it seems you haven't actually read
> his proof, just his sketch of the proof.

Cite your sources. The proof that I cited is his entire proof in his own
words not some Wikipedia summation.

His proof was added as an afterthought to a paper that he had already
published.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/23 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:

> OK so you did not can cannot support your claim, thus your claim is
> rejected as baseless.
>

You can't either, so I guess we need to reject yours to.

You have already been shown to misunderstand other peoples work, so your
interpretation is unreliable.

You are even on the record of claiming to be "God" so your mental
stability is questionable.

You have destroyed your reputation and will be remembered, for at least
as long as you are remembered, as a lying crank that doesn't understand
the basics of what he was talking about.

On 1/1/23 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/1/23 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would
>>>>> understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would
>>>>> have explicitly stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>>>>
>>>> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
>>>> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the
>>>> system, the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that
>>>> assumption) that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is
>>>> impossible for there to be a Defiition of Truth within the logic
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He never said anything like that.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is the whole basis of his proof.
>>
>> You just don't understand it because it seems you haven't actually
>> read his proof, just his sketch of the proof.
>
> Cite your sources. The proof that I cited is his entire proof in his own
> words not some Wikipedia summation.
>
> His proof was added as an afterthought to a paper that he had already
> published.
>

No, you cite SKETCHS of his proof presented in a book.

The sketch you cite isn't even in the actual form of a formal proof, but
a philosophical argument.

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

On 1/1/2023 4:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/1/23 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would
>>>>>> understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would
>>>>>> have explicitly stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth
>>>>>> bearer".
>>>>>
>>>>> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
>>>>> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the
>>>>> system, the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that
>>>>> assumption) that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is
>>>>> impossible for there to be a Defiition of Truth within the logic
>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He never said anything like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is the whole basis of his proof.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand it because it seems you haven't actually
>>> read his proof, just his sketch of the proof.
>>
>> Cite your sources. The proof that I cited is his entire proof in his
>> own words not some Wikipedia summation.
>>
>> His proof was added as an afterthought to a paper that he had already
>> published.
>>
>
> No, you cite SKETCHS of his proof presented in a book.
>
> The sketch you cite isn't even in the actual form of a formal proof, but
> a philosophical argument.
>
> You are just showing you don't understand what you are talking about.

It took me a few years to find his proof. It is contained in an 11 page
postscript to his 127 page paper: "The concept of truth in formalized
languages". There is nothing like a proof in these 11 pages besides the
two pages that I linked. *All sources refer to his proof in this paper*

Here is the whole paper, the proof is still on pages 275-276:
http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Tarski%20-%20The%20Concept%20of%20Truth%20in%20Formalized%20Languages.pdf

This same link is referenced by this source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem

in this reference:
A. Tarski, tr. J. H. Woodger, 1983. "The Concept of Truth in Formalized
Languages". English translation of Tarski's 1936 article. In A. Tarski,
ed. J. Corcoran, 1983, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Hackett.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you
>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>>
>>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually
>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>>>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>>>
>>
>> You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
>> your reference.
>
> I did.
>
>>
>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would understand
>> that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have explicitly
>> stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>
> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that assumption)
> that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is impossible for there to
> be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>
> What don't YOU understand about that statement?
>
>>
>>> He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
>>> "proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
>>> assumed Thesis must be false.
>>
>> The way that Tarski said it: "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
>> in his theory and true in his meta-theory.
>
> BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THESIS A.
>
> Thus, THESIS A can't be true.
>
>>
>> He never realized that what he really meant is that this sentence is
>> not true in his theory: "This sentence is not true"
>>
>> and this sentence is true in his meta-theory:
>> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"}
>
> Nope, that ISN'T what he is talking about. You just are not
> understanding his words.
>
> You have shown enough misundetandings, the most like cause of any
> disagreement between you and a respected logictian is that you don't
> actually understand what he is saying.
>
> This is also a natural outcome of your MISAPPLICATION of the concept of
> "First Principles".
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is true:
>>>> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>>>>
>>>> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely on
>>>> the
>>>> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to these
>>>> semantic meanings.
>>>
>>> No one is arguing that.
>>
>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.
>
> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the Liar Paracos is
> simply not a Truth Bearer.
>
> Things like tertiary Logic are attempts to expand the logic system to
> see if a system of logic could handle it.
>
> You DO understand the concepts of differing systems of logic with
> different ground rules, don't you?
>
> Maybe you don't as that concept breaks you idea of an overarching
> Meta-system that all logic falls under.
>
>>
>> Every logic system only has expressions of language that are {true,
>> false} or are not members of this formal system.
>
> Note members of THIS group of formal systems.
>
> Other formal systems have other values in their logic.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves that
>>>> I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
>>>> makers.
>>>
>>> Right, but that doesn't make it PROVABLE by the definition of Provable.
>>>
>>
>> Every element of the set of analytic knowledge is provable and the
>> remaining elements of the set of analytic truth have unknown truth
>> values.
>
> Yes, KNOWLEDGE is Provavle.
>
> TRUTH is not necessarily, as it may have an infinite set of connections,
> which makes it outside the normal definition of Knowable.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker
>>>> semantic connections.
>>>>
>>>> This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous truth
>>>> objects: "This sentence is true"
>>>>
>>>> True about what?
>>>> True about being true.
>>>> True about being true about what?
>>>> True about being true about being true.
>>>>
>>>> Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never resolved
>>>> to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> there must not be an ability to define in a system of logic, a
>>>>> "Definition of Truth" that allows you to determine (i.e. Proof)
>>>>> every True Statement, Disprove every false statement, and determine
>>>>> that every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
>>>> expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
>>>> We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.
>>>
>>> Right, its value is unknown in that Thoery, and thus unprovable in
>>> that theory. A Meta-Theory may be able to show that it actually IS
>>> true in that theory, and thus we have in the Theory a statment that
>>> actually is True (but not KNOWN to be true in the Theory) that is
>>> unprovable.
>>>
>>
>> The correct "theory" of the set of analytic truth allows any order of
>> reference from 0th order logic no N-ary logic.
>>
>> As Wittgenstein said true in a formal system means has been proved in
>> this formal system and false in this formal system means that the
>> opposite has been proved in this formal system.
>
> And he is WRONG in that statement,

On 12/31/2022 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/31/22 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge about
>>>>> how any of it works.
>>>>
>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that Tarski is
>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>
>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>
>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>>
>>
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>> That is not what he is saying, try again.
>
> Like you just said, even an idiot can just claim something is wrong.
>
> Note, since you aren't even showing the full chapter (which likely would
> be a copyright violation) its hard to get the full context of his
> statements, but thesse pages are
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thus, since we know that can't be, there must not be an ability to
>>> define in a system of logic, a "Definition of Truth" that allows you
>>> to determine (i.e. Proof) every True Statement, Disprove every false
>>> statement, and determine that every non-truthbearer was a
>>> non-truthbearer.
>>>
>>>
>>> What else do you think he is saying?
>>
>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory"
>>
>>
>
> ACCORDING TO THESIS A, this isn't neccesarily true if Thesis A isn't
> True. In fact, I suspect this whole section is building up to showing
> this leads to a contradiction, and thus THESIS A isn't True.
>
> Remeber, at the end he says:
>
> I should like to draw attention here to an analogous result. For every
> deductive science in "Which arithmetic is contained it is possible to
> specify arithmetical notions which, so to speak, belong intuitively to
> this science, but ,vhich cannot be defined on the basis of this science.
> 'Vith the help of methods which are, completely analogous to those used
> in the copstruction of the definition of truth, it is nevertheless
> possible to show that these concepts can be so defined provided the
> science is enriched by the introduction of variables of higher order.
>
>
> Which points out that IN THE THEORY, there are things which can not be
> defined, but need to be expressed in a higher order Theory (the Meta
> Theory)
>
> By extension, there will be things in the Meta-Theory which can not be
> defined, but need to be expressed in an even HIGHER order Theory (a
> Meta-Meta-Theory) and so on.
>

Or we could simply begin with 0 to N order logic and express any
analytic truth what-so-ever.

"This sentence is not true" is at one order of logic and untrue.

This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is at one
increment of higher order referring to the original order.

> Thus in any Theory, or Meta^n Theory, there will ALWAYS be things that
> can not be defined.
>

A finite order of logic can correctly specify any finite truth.
Most (if not all) infinite truths can be algorithmically compressed into
some finite logic.

> You don't seem to understand how proof by contradiction works, because
> you mind is too simple.

Right and you are one of the 16 people in the world with a six sigma IQ.
For an MIT grad I don't see the thrill in telling outrageous lies.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you
>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>>
>>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually
>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>>>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>>>
>>
>> You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
>> your reference.
>
> I did.
>
>>
>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would understand
>> that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have explicitly
>> stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>
> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that assumption)
> that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is impossible for there to
> be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>
> What don't YOU understand about that statement?
>
>>
>>> He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
>>> "proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
>>> assumed Thesis must be false.
>>
>> The way that Tarski said it: "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
>> in his theory and true in his meta-theory.
>
> BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THESIS A.
>
> Thus, THESIS A can't be true.
>
>>
>> He never realized that what he really meant is that this sentence is
>> not true in his theory: "This sentence is not true"
>>
>> and this sentence is true in his meta-theory:
>> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"}
>
> Nope, that ISN'T what he is talking about. You just are not
> understanding his words.
>
> You have shown enough misundetandings, the most like cause of any
> disagreement between you and a respected logictian is that you don't
> actually understand what he is saying.
>
> This is also a natural outcome of your MISAPPLICATION of the concept of
> "First Principles".
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is true:
>>>> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>>>>
>>>> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely on
>>>> the
>>>> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to these
>>>> semantic meanings.
>>>
>>> No one is arguing that.
>>
>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.
>
> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the Liar Paracos is
> simply not a Truth Bearer.

I don't think that all the people writing papers about how to resolve
the Liar Paradox fail to understand binary logic.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/23 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/31/2022 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/31/22 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you are
>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>
>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually True.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>> That is not what he is saying, try again.
>>
>> Like you just said, even an idiot can just claim something is wrong.
>>
>> Note, since you aren't even showing the full chapter (which likely
>> would be a copyright violation) its hard to get the full context of
>> his statements, but thesse pages are
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be, there must not be an ability to
>>>> define in a system of logic, a "Definition of Truth" that allows you
>>>> to determine (i.e. Proof) every True Statement, Disprove every false
>>>> statement, and determine that every non-truthbearer was a
>>>> non-truthbearer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What else do you think he is saying?
>>>
>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ACCORDING TO THESIS A, this isn't neccesarily true if Thesis A isn't
>> True. In fact, I suspect this whole section is building up to showing
>> this leads to a contradiction, and thus THESIS A isn't True.
>>
>> Remeber, at the end he says:
>>
>> I should like to draw attention here to an analogous result. For every
>> deductive science in "Which arithmetic is contained it is possible to
>> specify arithmetical notions which, so to speak, belong intuitively to
>> this science, but ,vhich cannot be defined on the basis of this
>> science. 'Vith the help of methods which are, completely analogous to
>> those used in the copstruction of the definition of truth, it is
>> nevertheless possible to show that these concepts can be so defined
>> provided the science is enriched by the introduction of variables of
>> higher order.
>>
>>
>> Which points out that IN THE THEORY, there are things which can not be
>> defined, but need to be expressed in a higher order Theory (the Meta
>> Theory)
>>
>> By extension, there will be things in the Meta-Theory which can not be
>> defined, but need to be expressed in an even HIGHER order Theory (a
>> Meta-Meta-Theory) and so on.
>>
>
> Or we could simply begin with 0 to N order logic and express any
> analytic truth what-so-ever.
>

Until you get to an expression that needs N+1 order logic.

> "This sentence is not true" is at one order of logic and untrue.
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is at one
> increment of higher order referring to the original order.
>
>> Thus in any Theory, or Meta^n Theory, there will ALWAYS be things that
>> can not be defined.
>>
>
> A finite order of logic can correctly specify any finite truth.
> Most (if not all) infinite truths can be algorithmically compressed into
> some finite logic.

What is a "finite Truth", one that needs only a finite number of steps
to get to it, you mean a PROBALBE truth?

Why do you say that "Most" infinite truths can be algoritmically
commpressed? What evidence do you have of that,

And if ANY of them can't, it says you have an unprovable truth.

>
>> You don't seem to understand how proof by contradiction works, because
>> you mind is too simple.
>
> Right and you are one of the 16 people in the world with a six sigma IQ.
> For an MIT grad I don't see the thrill in telling outrageous lies.
>

Actually, it more shows how little you should believe in single fixed
tests. I will admit that I probably topped out the test and it wasn't
properly calibrated at the high end, but that is the result it gave.

Another test gave me a 150, and the tester admitted that that was as
high as the test would go, and I was likely much higher, but that was
more than high enough for what I was testing for.

I put little enough faith it IQ tests that I haven't bothered trying a
test really designed for top end people, because in my mind it doesn't
really matter, because intelegence isn't a one dimensional thing that
can be accurately measured.

On 1/1/23 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a
>>>>>> definition existed, then from that definition you could prove in
>>>>>> the defined Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox
>>>>>> was actually True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>>>>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
>>> your reference.
>>
>> I did.
>>
>>>
>>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would
>>> understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would have
>>> explicitly stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>>
>> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
>> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
>> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that assumption)
>> that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is impossible for there
>> to be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>>
>> What don't YOU understand about that statement?
>>
>>>
>>>> He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
>>>> "proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
>>>> assumed Thesis must be false.
>>>
>>> The way that Tarski said it: "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
>>> in his theory and true in his meta-theory.
>>
>> BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THESIS A.
>>
>> Thus, THESIS A can't be true.
>>
>>>
>>> He never realized that what he really meant is that this sentence is
>>> not true in his theory: "This sentence is not true"
>>>
>>> and this sentence is true in his meta-theory:
>>> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"}
>>
>> Nope, that ISN'T what he is talking about. You just are not
>> understanding his words.
>>
>> You have shown enough misundetandings, the most like cause of any
>> disagreement between you and a respected logictian is that you don't
>> actually understand what he is saying.
>>
>> This is also a natural outcome of your MISAPPLICATION of the concept
>> of "First Principles".
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence is true:
>>>>> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely
>>>>> on the
>>>>> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to
>>>>> these
>>>>> semantic meanings.
>>>>
>>>> No one is arguing that.
>>>
>>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
>>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.
>>
>> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the Liar Paracos
>> is simply not a Truth Bearer.
>>
>> Things like tertiary Logic are attempts to expand the logic system to
>> see if a system of logic could handle it.
>>
>> You DO understand the concepts of differing systems of logic with
>> different ground rules, don't you?
>>
>> Maybe you don't as that concept breaks you idea of an overarching
>> Meta-system that all logic falls under.
>>
>>>
>>> Every logic system only has expressions of language that are {true,
>>> false} or are not members of this formal system.
>>
>> Note members of THIS group of formal systems.
>>
>> Other formal systems have other values in their logic.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves
>>>>> that
>>>>> I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
>>>>> makers.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but that doesn't make it PROVABLE by the definition of Provable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every element of the set of analytic knowledge is provable and the
>>> remaining elements of the set of analytic truth have unknown truth
>>> values.
>>
>> Yes, KNOWLEDGE is Provavle.
>>
>> TRUTH is not necessarily, as it may have an infinite set of
>> connections, which makes it outside the normal definition of Knowable.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker
>>>>> semantic connections.
>>>>>
>>>>> This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous
>>>>> truth objects: "This sentence is true"
>>>>>
>>>>> True about what?
>>>>> True about being true.
>>>>> True about being true about what?
>>>>> True about being true about being true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never
>>>>> resolved
>>>>> to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> there must not be an ability to define in a system of logic, a
>>>>>> "Definition of Truth" that allows you to determine (i.e. Proof)
>>>>>> every True Statement, Disprove every false statement, and
>>>>>> determine that every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
>>>>> expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
>>>>> We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.
>>>>
>>>> Right, its value is unknown in that Thoery, and thus unprovable in
>>>> that theory. A Meta-Theory may be able to show that it actually IS
>>>> true in that theory, and thus we have in the Theory a statment that
>>>> actually is True (but not KNOWN to be true in the Theory) that is
>>>> unprovable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The correct "theory" of the set of analytic truth allows any order of
>>> reference from 0th order logic no N-ary logic.
>>>
>>> As Wittgenstein said true in a formal system means has been proved in
>>> this formal system and false in this formal system means that the
>>> opposite has been proved in this formal system.
>>
>> And he is WRONG in that statement,
>
> All expressions of language that are analytically true require a
> semantic connection to their truth maker.
>
> Try and show how an expression of language can be true in a formal
> system when that formal system cannot express any connection to the
> required truth maker of this expression.
>

On 1/1/23 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:

>>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
>>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.
>>
>> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the Liar Paracos
>> is simply not a Truth Bearer.
>
> I don't think that all the people writing papers about how to resolve
> the Liar Paradox fail to understand binary logic.
>

Most INTELEGENT people trying to resolve the Liar's Paradox understand
Binary Logic, and are looking for logic beyond Binary Logic to see if
other Logical Paradigms might be able to handle that sort of thing (and
actually are probably looking at things more complicated then the simple
Liar's Paradox).

I will admit, that are probably a lot of DUMB people, who don't
understand logic, and are doing all sorts of dumb things, and if those
are hiting your radar, you need a better selection filter.

Of course, those are probably the works that you can sort of understand,
since they are at your level.

And actually, MOST people just understand that non-truth of the Liar's
Paradox and they leave it at that.

On 1/1/2023 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/31/2022 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/31/22 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you
>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>>
>>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory is
>>>>> True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a definition
>>>>> existed, then from that definition you could prove in the defined
>>>>> Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox was actually
>>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>>> That is not what he is saying, try again.
>>>
>>> Like you just said, even an idiot can just claim something is wrong.
>>>
>>> Note, since you aren't even showing the full chapter (which likely
>>> would be a copyright violation) its hard to get the full context of
>>> his statements, but thesse pages are
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be, there must not be an ability to
>>>>> define in a system of logic, a "Definition of Truth" that allows
>>>>> you to determine (i.e. Proof) every True Statement, Disprove every
>>>>> false statement, and determine that every non-truthbearer was a
>>>>> non-truthbearer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What else do you think he is saying?
>>>>
>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ACCORDING TO THESIS A, this isn't neccesarily true if Thesis A isn't
>>> True. In fact, I suspect this whole section is building up to showing
>>> this leads to a contradiction, and thus THESIS A isn't True.
>>>
>>> Remeber, at the end he says:
>>>
>>> I should like to draw attention here to an analogous result. For
>>> every deductive science in "Which arithmetic is contained it is
>>> possible to specify arithmetical notions which, so to speak, belong
>>> intuitively to this science, but ,vhich cannot be defined on the
>>> basis of this science. 'Vith the help of methods which are,
>>> completely analogous to those used in the copstruction of the
>>> definition of truth, it is nevertheless possible to show that these
>>> concepts can be so defined provided the science is enriched by the
>>> introduction of variables of higher order.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which points out that IN THE THEORY, there are things which can not
>>> be defined, but need to be expressed in a higher order Theory (the
>>> Meta Theory)
>>>
>>> By extension, there will be things in the Meta-Theory which can not
>>> be defined, but need to be expressed in an even HIGHER order Theory
>>> (a Meta-Meta-Theory) and so on.
>>>
>>
>> Or we could simply begin with 0 to N order logic and express any
>> analytic truth what-so-ever.
>>
>
> Until you get to an expression that needs N+1 order logic.
>

Are you saying that I might run out of natural numbers?

>> "This sentence is not true" is at one order of logic and untrue.
>>
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is at one
>> increment of higher order referring to the original order.
>>
>>> Thus in any Theory, or Meta^n Theory, there will ALWAYS be things
>>> that can not be defined.
>>>
>>
>> A finite order of logic can correctly specify any finite truth.
>> Most (if not all) infinite truths can be algorithmically compressed into
>> some finite logic.
>
> What is a "finite Truth", one that needs only a finite number of steps
> to get to it, you mean a PROBALBE truth?
>

"finite truth" is any truth that can be expressed in a finite number of
steps including specifying the algorithm for an infinite number of steps.

> Why do you say that "Most" infinite truths can be algoritmically
> commpressed? What evidence do you have of that,
>
> And if ANY of them can't, it says you have an unprovable truth.
>
>>
>>> You don't seem to understand how proof by contradiction works,
>>> because you mind is too simple.
>>
>> Right and you are one of the 16 people in the world with a six sigma IQ.
>> For an MIT grad I don't see the thrill in telling outrageous lies.
>>
>
> Actually, it more shows how little you should believe in single fixed
> tests. I will admit that I probably topped out the test and it wasn't
> properly calibrated at the high end, but that is the result it gave.
>
> Another test gave me a 150, and the tester admitted that that was as
> high as the test would go, and I was likely much higher, but that was
> more than high enough for what I was testing for.
>
> I put little enough faith it IQ tests that I haven't bothered trying a
> test really designed for top end people, because in my mind it doesn't
> really matter, because intelegence isn't a one dimensional thing that
> can be accurately measured.

I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top 1% much less
than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily believe the top
5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/1/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:

> I don't believe that you have an IQ anywhere near the top 1% much less
> than the 185 IQ of top 2 in a billion. I could easily believe the top
> 5%, most everyone here is in the top 5%.
>

Doesn't matter what you believe, as you have demonstrated that you don't
understand what is actually Truth.

On 1/1/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/1/23 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/1/23 2:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/1/2023 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/1/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2022 12:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/22 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true.
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not true because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus there can not be a Definition of Truth in the
>>>>>>>>>>> system because if there was, you could show that statement True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 這句話不是真的: "This sentence is not true."
>>>>>>>>>> The Chinese says "This sentence is not true:" referring to the
>>>>>>>>>> English.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Chinese sentence is true because the English sentence is
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. This is an exact isomorphism to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    "sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory [my
>>>>>>>>>> English]
>>>>>>>>>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory [my
>>>>>>>>>> Chinese]."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is a non-sequitor, showing you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your Stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think you even actually understand any of the basics of
>>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can parrot words, but you show an utter lack of knowledge
>>>>>>>>> about how any of it works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try and paraphrase 100% perfectly exactly what you think that
>>>>>>>> Tarski is
>>>>>>>> saying. Any idiot (even a bot) can claim that someone is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Like you are doing**
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It takes actual understanding to point out the exact error and the
>>>>>>>> reason that it is an error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do we need to paraphrase?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He says that a "Definition" of Truth, by which he means a way to
>>>>>>> determine if a given arbitrary sentence expressed in the Theory
>>>>>>> is True or False (or not a Truth Bearer) because, if such a
>>>>>>> definition existed, then from that definition you could prove in
>>>>>>> the defined Meta-Theory that a Statement like the Liar's Paradox
>>>>>>> was actually True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No that is incorrect. Tarski never indicated that he understood that
>>>>>> expressions of formal language are not necessarily truth bearers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can yo PROVE that tement, have you read EVERYTHING he has written.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You made a claim that he understood this thus it is up to you to cite
>>>> your reference.
>>>
>>> I did.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I claim that he does not understand this otherwise he would
>>>> understand that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer and would
>>>> have explicitly stated that: "the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer".
>>>
>>> He knows that, that is why he points out that the fact that the
>>> assumption of the existance of a Definition of Truth with the system,
>>> the assumption of which allows him to prove (based on that
>>> assumption) that the liar paradox is true, shows that it is
>>> impossible for there to be a Defiition of Truth within the logic system.
>>>
>>> What don't YOU understand about that statement?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He actually seems to understand this, because he uses the fact that
>>>>> "proving" the Liar's Paradox, based on an assumed Thesis, shows the
>>>>> assumed Thesis must be false.
>>>>
>>>> The way that Tarski said it: "This sentence is not true" is undecidable
>>>> in his theory and true in his meta-theory.
>>>
>>> BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THESIS A.
>>>
>>> Thus, THESIS A can't be true.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> He never realized that what he really meant is that this sentence is
>>>> not true in his theory: "This sentence is not true"
>>>>
>>>> and this sentence is true in his meta-theory:
>>>> {This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"}
>>>
>>> Nope, that ISN'T what he is talking about. You just are not
>>> understanding his words.
>>>
>>> You have shown enough misundetandings, the most like cause of any
>>> disagreement between you and a respected logictian is that you don't
>>> actually understand what he is saying.
>>>
>>> This is also a natural outcome of your MISAPPLICATION of the concept
>>> of "First Principles".
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is true:
>>>>>> {The following sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true."}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, since we know that can't be,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and think of any expression of language that is true entirely
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>> basis of its meaning that does not have truthmaker connections to
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> semantic meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one is arguing that.
>>>>
>>>> Hardly anyone seems to understand that the Liar Paradox is simply not a
>>>> truth bearer otherwise tertiary logic would have never been created.
>>>
>>> No Nearly EVERYONE understands that in Binary Logic, the Liar Paracos
>>> is simply not a Truth Bearer.
>>>
>>> Things like tertiary Logic are attempts to expand the logic system to
>>> see if a system of logic could handle it.
>>>
>>> You DO understand the concepts of differing systems of logic with
>>> different ground rules, don't you?
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't as that concept breaks you idea of an overarching
>>> Meta-system that all logic falls under.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every logic system only has expressions of language that are {true,
>>>> false} or are not members of this formal system.
>>>
>>> Note members of THIS group of formal systems.
>>>
>>> Other formal systems have other values in their logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If no such counter example exists in the universe then that proves
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> I am correct about the requirement of semantic connections to truth
>>>>>> makers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but that doesn't make it PROVABLE by the definition of
>>>>> Provable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every element of the set of analytic knowledge is provable and the
>>>> remaining elements of the set of analytic truth have unknown truth
>>>> values.
>>>
>>> Yes, KNOWLEDGE is Provavle.
>>>
>>> TRUTH is not necessarily, as it may have an infinite set of
>>> connections, which makes it outside the normal definition of Knowable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language have no truthmaker
>>>>>> semantic connections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also applies to expressions of language that have vacuous
>>>>>> truth objects: "This sentence is true"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True about what?
>>>>>> True about being true.
>>>>>> True about being true about what?
>>>>>> True about being true about being true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah I see an infinitely recursive structure that never is never
>>>>>> resolved
>>>>>> to a truth value, thus not a truth bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there must not be an ability to define in a system of logic, a
>>>>>>> "Definition of Truth" that allows you to determine (i.e. Proof)
>>>>>>> every True Statement, Disprove every false statement, and
>>>>>>> determine that every non-truthbearer was a non-truthbearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The possible requirement of an infinite proof requires that some
>>>>>> expressions of language can only have an unknown Boolean value.
>>>>>> We can't even tell that they definitely require an infinite proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, its value is unknown in that Thoery, and thus unprovable in
>>>>> that theory. A Meta-Theory may be able to show that it actually IS
>>>>> true in that theory, and thus we have in the Theory a statment that
>>>>> actually is True (but not KNOWN to be true in the Theory) that is
>>>>> unprovable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct "theory" of the set of analytic truth allows any order
>>>> of reference from 0th order logic no N-ary logic.
>>>>
>>>> As Wittgenstein said true in a formal system means has been proved in
>>>> this formal system and false in this formal system means that the
>>>> opposite has been proved in this formal system.
>>>
>>> And he is WRONG in that statement,
>>
>> All expressions of language that are analytically true require a
>> semantic connection to their truth maker.
>>
>> Try and show how an expression of language can be true in a formal
>> system when that formal system cannot express any connection to the
>> required truth maker of this expression.
>>
>
> So you still don't understand the difference between having a semantic
> connenction (which might be infinite) to being proven (which must be
> finite in the system in question).
>