On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Then your system can't do logic.
> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
>
>>
>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
>> logic system.
> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
>
> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
>
>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
>
> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!

But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if you CLAIM you have embedded into your system the
"property" that they don't, if they can support minimal levels of logic,
they will.

All you are doing is proving that your system is a zero information system.

On 12/16/22 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>>> properties.
>>>>
>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>> which they don't.
>>>
>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>>
>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
>> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
>> actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>
> The principle of explosion is incorrect because semantics are ignored.

So, you don't understand how logic works.

You are basically DEFINING that your system is unable to derive any
information that you haven't directly put into it.

And thus, is NOT a system of logic.

>
> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
> statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and
> suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven,
> e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>
> axiom CATS ⊂ ANIMALS ⊂ LIVING_THINGS
> all cats are animals
> all animals are living things
> ∴ all cats are living things
>
> ▷ <is a type of> operator borrowed from UML
> CAT ▷ ANIMAL ▷ LIVING_THING
>

On 12/16/22 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in
>>>> the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the
>>>> same size.
>>>>
>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>
>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>
>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>>>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>
>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>
>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>
>>
>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.
>>
>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>> applies.
>>
>
> I am establishing (for the very first time) the foundation of analytical
> truth. Previous attempts by others failed because they did not bother to
> divide analytic truth from empirical truth.

So, go to the BEGINING of the existing logical system that is based on a
different foundation, and see how much of it you can retain.

Good luck at that,

You are likely going to need to invoke your "Godness" to get enough time
to do this.

Note, you need to start at the VERY begining,

For instance, your trying to refute Godel in your system is VERY premature.

First you need to prove that your system supports the mathematics needed
to construct the proof.

From other proofs in the system, I would say you are going to run into
a problem with this.

>
> The Münchhausen trilemma cannot exist within my foundation.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>
> (1) Expressions of language that are stipulated to have the semantic
> value of Boolean true such as "cats are animals".
>
> (2) Expressions of language derived by applying truth preserving
> operations to (1) and/or the output of (2).
>
>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>
> Every expression of language that cannot possibly be proven to be true
> or false is not a truth bearer.

So, you are confusing Truth with Knowledge.

The equating of them has been shown to limit the power of your logic system

>
>>>
>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>>>
>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy for
>>> you.
>>
>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something is
>> true to be able to easily remember it.
>>
>> I have very limited ability to remember just "random" facts, but when
>> I can see an order to the system, my brain can process and store it.
>>
>
> How bad is this and is it the reason that I have to tell you the same
> thing 50 times before you ever notice that I said it once?
>
> I had been taking this as horrifically terrible disrespect.
>
>> Typically, I remember a few basic rules, and rapidly rederive the
>> combinations of them, until eventually the combinations work
>> themselves into memory store.
>>
>>>
>>>> very hard to learn things "by rote", but I need to have at least
>>>> good understanding of WHY things work the way they do to remember them.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 12/16/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in
>>>>> the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the
>>>>> same size.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>
>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>>>>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>
>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>
>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.
>>>
>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>>> applies.
>>>
>>
>> I am establishing (for the very first time) the foundation of analytical
>> truth. Previous attempts by others failed because they did not bother to
>> divide analytic truth from empirical truth.
>
> So, go to the BEGINING of the existing logical system that is based on a
> different foundation, and see how much of it you can retain.
>
The foundation that I am specifying is how analytical truth actually works.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott

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

On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in
>>> the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the
>>> same size.
>>>
>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them), but
>>> if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>
>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>
>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>
>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>
>>
>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>
>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>> never previously been correctly established
>>
>
> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.
>
> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth applies.
>
> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>
>>
>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>>
>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy for you.
>
> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something is
> true to be able to easily remember it.
>
To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott

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

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:02:33 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:

> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 00:49:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 4:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> >> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true
>> >> by definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
>> > Great!
>> >
>> > Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid. Because
>> > I've defined you that way.
>> >
>> That contradicts other axioms that have already been defined in the
>> system.
> Impossible.
>
> The first axiom of the system I am talking about is "contradictions
> don't exist".
>
> A contradiction would contradict the non-existence of contradictions.

Category error.

/Flibble

On 12/16/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Which means you just stipulated that you are not working on the
>>>> ACTUAL Halting Problem,
>>>
>>> I am talking about the definition of the term {analytical} as in the
>>> analytic versus empirical distinction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Since the Halting Problem isn't about such a distinction, ait shows
>> you don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>
> I have not been talking about the halting problem anywhere in this
> entire thread.
>

Well, it also means you are not talking about Godel, as that is
mathematics, which is also not a "Pure Analytic" domain, as Mathematics
isn't.

On 12/16/22 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>>>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element
>>>>>> in the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be
>>>>>> the same size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most)
>>>>>> of the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>>>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically
>>>> proveable.
>>>>
>>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>>>> applies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am establishing (for the very first time) the foundation of analytical
>>> truth. Previous attempts by others failed because they did not bother to
>>> divide analytic truth from empirical truth.
>>
>> So, go to the BEGINING of the existing logical system that is based on
>> a different foundation, and see how much of it you can retain.
>>
> The foundation that I am specifying is how analytical truth actually works.
>

And thus not applicable to Formal System which do not define themselves
as purely Analytical.

On 12/16/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in
>>>> the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the
>>>> same size.
>>>>
>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>
>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>
>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>>>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>
>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>
>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>
>>
>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.
>>
>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>> applies.
>>
>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>>
>>>
>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>>>
>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy for
>>> you.
>>
>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something is
>> true to be able to easily remember it.
>>
> To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
> the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?
>
>

No, because just repeating meaningless statements means I will only get
it very slowly, if at all. Your claim by fiat just will not get into my
head, except for me to classify you as a source of non-sense.

You need to EXPLAIN and be LOGICAL for me to remember.

This seems to be beyond you.

You don't seem to understand what you are saying, so it will be very
hard for you to explain it.

On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Then your system can't do logic.
> > What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
> >
> >>
> >> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
> >> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
> >> logic system.
> > The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
> >
> > Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
> >
> >> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
> > Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
> >
> > Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
They don't. By design.

> It doesn't matter if you CLAIM you have embedded into your system the
> "property" that they don't, if they can support minimal levels of logic,
> they will.
> All you are doing is proving that your system is a zero information system.
Q.E.D You don't know the first thing about system design.

Usually inconsistency is tightly coupled with triviality. Decouple them.

On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:32 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values are
> True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>
> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
How is this possible? In order to call something a "Truth Bearer" you must know it capable of having a truth-value.
But if your knowledge is incomplete you can't possibly differentiate Truth Bearers from non-Truth Bearers.

You don't know whether there is or isn't an 11th planet in the solar system.
So you don't know if "The 11th planet in the Solar system has 3 moons." is truth-bearer or not.

If there's an 11th planet then it's a truth-bearer.
If there isn't an 11th planet then it's not a truth-bearer.

On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:59:57 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:02:33 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 00:49:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2022 4:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> >> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are true
> >> >> by definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
> >> > Great!
> >> >
> >> > Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid. Because
> >> > I've defined you that way.
> >> >
> >> That contradicts other axioms that have already been defined in the
> >> system.
> > Impossible.
> >
> > The first axiom of the system I am talking about is "contradictions
> > don't exist".
> >
> > A contradiction would contradict the non-existence of contradictions.
> Category error.

Erroneous "category error" assertion.

On 12/17/22 3:30 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:51 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 11:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:48 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Then your system can't do logic.
>>> What's your classification rule for "doing" vs "not doing" logic?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
>>>> logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
>>>> logic system.
>>> The principle of explosion is not demonstrable in para-consistent logic, so you clearly thing that para-consistent logic is not logic.
>>>
>>> Weird. It has "logic" in its name.
>>>
>>>> You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.
>>> Look. I have no idea what your objective measure for "worth" is, but in so far as logic systems have semantic properties some explode due to inconsistencies and some don't.
>>>
>>> Perhaps some people find worth in logic systems which don't explode? Peculiar idea, I know!
>> But since yours DO, it doesn't matter.
> They don't. By design.

No, yours DO explode, but you are apparentlly too stupid to see it.

All you are doing is adding more explosive power by adding the
INCONSISTANT "rule" that they can't.

>
>> It doesn't matter if you CLAIM you have embedded into your system the
>> "property" that they don't, if they can support minimal levels of logic,
>> they will.
>> All you are doing is proving that your system is a zero information system.
> Q.E.D You don't know the first thing about system design.
>
> Usually inconsistency is tightly coupled with triviality. Decouple them.

As I have pointed out, the triviality that is coupled with your
inconsistacy is the "rules" you are trying to use to define your system.

In other words, your systems are FUNDAMENTALLY flawed because they are
based on incorrect assumptions.

On 12/17/22 3:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:32 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values are
>> True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>
>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
> How is this possible? In order to call something a "Truth Bearer" you must know it capable of having a truth-value.

Again, you make the same mistake.

It isn't a question if I KNOW I can call it one, the question actually
is if it IS one.

> But if your knowledge is incomplete you can't possibly differentiate Truth Bearers from non-Truth Bearers.

Yes, I admit, there are SOME statements I don't know if they are
Truth-Bears or not, but there are also a number of statements that I
know are Truth Bearers without knowing the Truth Value.

For instance, a statement about the provability of a statement or the
Truth Bearing of a Statement is ALWAYS a Truth Bearer.

>
> You don't know whether there is or isn't an 11th planet in the solar system.
> So you don't know if "The 11th planet in the Solar system has 3 moons." is truth-bearer or not.
>
> If there's an 11th planet then it's a truth-bearer.
> If there isn't an 11th planet then it's not a truth-bearer.

Right, but the statement "There is an 11th Planet" IS a Truth-Bearer.

Just like The Collatz Conjecture IS a Truth-Bearer, even though we don't
know the answer.

There are large categories of statement, which because of their form, we
can be certain (and thus we know) are Truth Bearer. Most of these are in
one sense "Meta" statements (but still in the system) because they are
statements about statements, and the property we are talking about has a
defined answer for things that aren't "valid" statements.

For instance, a non-sense statement is not a Truth Bearer, so the
question about if it IS a Truth Bearer is itself a Truth Bearer, because
the answer to that is False

The question if a non-sense statement is provable is a Truth Bearer,
because only True statements are provable, so since a non-sense sentence
isn't True, it can't be proven.

Similarly, an existance question is a truth bearer, if the thing the
existance is being asked about is defined. (The existance of an
undefined thing can be a non-truth-bearer).

In a real sense, this is a generalization of questions about
provability, as the question of provability is the question about the
existance of a proof.

On 12/17/2022 2:37 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:16:32 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values are
>> True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>
>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
> How is this possible? In order to call something a "Truth Bearer" you must know it capable of having a truth-value.
> But if your knowledge is incomplete you can't
> possibly differentiate Truth Bearers from non-Truth Bearer possibly ALWAYS differentiate Truth Bearers from non-Truth Bearers.

Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.
It knows this:

G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))
G is true if and only if G is unprovable and irrefutable in F
∃G ∈ F (G ↔ ((F ⊬ G) ∧ (F ⊬ ¬G))) is simply false

based on this foundational theorem
∀φ ∈ T ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))

> You don't know whether there is or isn't an 11th planet in the solar system.
> So you don't know if "The 11th planet in the Solar system has 3 moons." is truth-bearer or not.
>
> If there's an 11th planet then it's a truth-bearer.
> If there isn't an 11th planet then it's not a truth-bearer.

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

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 01:19:29 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:

> On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 02:59:57 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:02:33 -0800, Skep Dick wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, 17 December 2022 at 00:49:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> >> On 12/16/2022 4:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 23:54:45 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> >> >> Mendelson shows how to prove expressions of language that are
>> >> >> true by definition: AKA theorems: ⊢𝒞
>> >> > Great!
>> >> >
>> >> > Now use Mendelson's technique to prove that you are stupid.
>> >> > Because I've defined you that way.
>> >> >
>> >> That contradicts other axioms that have already been defined in the
>> >> system.
>> > Impossible.
>> >
>> > The first axiom of the system I am talking about is "contradictions
>> > don't exist".
>> >
>> > A contradiction would contradict the non-existence of contradictions.
>> Category error.
>
> Erroneous "category error" assertion.

Nope, your assertion is self referential/circular ergo it is a category
error.

/Flibble

On 12/16/2022 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in
>>>>> the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the
>>>>> same size.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>
>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>>>>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>
>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>
>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.
>>>
>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>>> applies.
>>>
>>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>>>>
>>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy for
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something
>>> is true to be able to easily remember it.
>>>
>> To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
>> the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?
>>
>>
>
> No, because just repeating meaningless statements means I will only get
> it very slowly, if at all. Your claim by fiat just will not get into my
> head, except for me to classify you as a source of non-sense.
>

It took you five times to notice that I said:
KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH

You kept saying that I incorrectly conflate knowledge with truth five
times after I said that knowledge is a subset of truth.

> You need to EXPLAIN and be LOGICAL for me to remember.
>

It seems that you have ADD, is this correct?

> This seems to be beyond you.
>
> You don't seem to understand what you are saying, so it will be very
> hard for you to explain 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 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>> Truth
>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>
>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full
>>>> of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to
>>>> separate them.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>> the nature of Truth.
>>>
>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>> False (or not True).
>>
>> True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown
>
> The last is NOT a possible value of Truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
It is currently unknown whether or not Goldbach's conjecture is
provable.

If Goldbach's conjecture can only be proven though a complete
enumeration of every natural number then this makes Goldbach's
conjecture not a truth bearer.

>
> Your confusion on this means the rest of your statements are meaningless.
>
>>
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>> *Key element of the Tarski Undefinability proof*
>>
>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>>   ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
>> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
>> ∃x (~Provable(x) ↔ True(x)) is simply false
>>
>> The next one is a little more accurate because Tarski does not bother to
>> carefully keep track of whether an expression is encoded in his theory
>> or his meta-theory. F is the formal system (AKA theory) that G is
>> referring to.
>>
>> G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G)) is simply false
>>
>> Within the foundation of analytical truth an expression of language is
>> only true if it is either stipulated to be true or derived by applying
>> truth preserving operations to expressions of language having the
>> semantic property of Boolean true.
>>
>> Stipulated to be true is Haskell Curry elementary theorems of formal
>> systems or verified facts of natural language.
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>
>

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

On 12/17/22 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 8:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>>>>>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets,
>>>>>> i.e. you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that
>>>>>> EVERY element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element
>>>>>> in the other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be
>>>>>> the same size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>>>>>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them),
>>>>>> but if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most)
>>>>>> of the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote)
>>>>>> over the many years of my life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
>>>>> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
>>>>> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
>>>>> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
>>>>> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
>>>>> never previously been correctly established
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
>>>> limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically
>>>> proveable.
>>>>
>>>> You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth
>>>> applies.
>>>>
>>>> You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>>>>>
>>>>> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy
>>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>> A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something
>>>> is true to be able to easily remember it.
>>>>
>>> To what extent do you have this problem? Do I really have to tell you
>>> the same exact things 50 times before you notice that I said it once?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, because just repeating meaningless statements means I will only
>> get it very slowly, if at all. Your claim by fiat just will not get
>> into my head, except for me to classify you as a source of non-sense.
>>
>
> It took you five times to notice that I said:
> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>
> You kept saying that I incorrectly conflate knowledge with truth five
> times after I said that knowledge is a subset of truth.

Right, because when you talk about TRUTH, you restrict it to something
that is known.

There is no state of TRUTH of "Not Known", that is not a "Truth Vaule"
but a KNOWLEDGE VALUE.

A Truth Bearing statement is either True or it is False, it can have no
other value.

A statement can be a Truth Bearer or it can NOT be a Truth Bearer, there
is no other state.

Thus a statement can be either True, False, or Not a Truth Bearer.

There is no TRUTH value of "Unknown".

That only comes when we talk of our KNOWLEDGE of its Truth value.

Some statements, like relating to the existence (in a system) of
something that is defined (like a proof) are ALWAYS Truth Bearers, and
these become Empirical Facts of the system (or they could be Analytical
Facts if they can be proven).

The only way to avoid the creation of Emperical Facts is to limit your
system so that everything that can exist can be shown to exist with a
finite proof, which generally requires it to have a totally finite and
bounded domain.

This excludes most fields of Mathematics.

>
>> You need to EXPLAIN and be LOGICAL for me to remember.
>>
>
> It seems that you have ADD, is this correct?

There may be touches of that, but that isn't it. My memory processes are
content reliant, it is hard to store just "random" facts, they need
interconnections to be stored (or maybe to be retrieved).

>
>> This seems to be beyond you.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand what you are saying, so it will be very
>> hard for you to explain it.
>

On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nope. That is just your failure to understand what it Truth, and
>>>>> are confusing it with Knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your definition lead to inconsistencies like ending up with
>>>>> statements for which no proof exists but are not Unprovable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True/false/not a truth bearer/currently unknown
>>>
>>> "Currently Unknown" is NOT a valut of Truth, but Knowledge.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Inconsistencies are screened out as not elements of the set of truth in
>>>> the correction to the foundation of analytical truth that I propose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are confusing Truth with knowledge.
>>
>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>
>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>
> Since KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH it is thus not equal to it, why do you try to
> limit truth to what is known?
>

My goal is to correct the erroneous understanding of the nature of truth
so that Davidson truth conditional semantics can be anchored in a
formalized notion of truth. Since we cannot fully elaborate every single
detail of unknown truth we must work with the subset that we do have.

> You statement says there ARE things that are True but not known.
>
> You don't seem to understand set theory.
>
> You are proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>

I am defining brand new things that cannot be verified by looking them
up in textbooks. People that only know these things on the basis of
learned-by-rote count all brand new knowledge as error because they
cannot find this brand new knowledge in any textbook.

The entire body of analytic truth is a set of expressions of language
that are only true on the basis of their semantic connections to other
expressions of language. This means that every element of analytic truth
is provable on the basis of tracing these semantic connections.

Some of these elements may have unknown semantic connections such that
they cannot be proved until these semantic connections are known. These
elements are in the body of truth, yet not in the body of knowledge.

> You are just proving yourself unqualified to talk about such things.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> You admit you are not all-knowing, so you are showing your ignoorance
>>> when you claim that Knowledge == Truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you are proving you don't know the difference between the two,
>>> you have disqualified yourself in the field.
>>
>

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

On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 11:29 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>> Truth
>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>
>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full
>>>> of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to
>>>> separate them.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of the
>>> nature of Truth.
>>>
>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and False
>>> (or not True).
>> This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why are you
>> equating "not True" with False?
>>
>
> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values are
> True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>
> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.

Elements of the body of analytic truth are only true on the basis of
their semantic connections to other elements. When some of these
connections are unknown then these elements are in the body of truth yet
missing from the body of knowledge.

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

On 12/17/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>>> Truth
>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of
>>>> the nature of Truth.
>>>>
>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and
>>>> False (or not True).
>>>
>>> True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown
>>
>> The last is NOT a possible value of Truth.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> It is currently unknown whether or not Goldbach's conjecture is
> provable.
>
> If Goldbach's conjecture can only be proven though a complete
> enumeration of every natural number then this makes Goldbach's
> conjecture not a truth bearer.

Why?

Either it is True or it Isn't.

Either there exists an even number that can not be expressed as the sum
of two primes (which proves the Conjecture False), or there doesn't.

If there doesn't exist such a number, even if it takes an infinite
number of operations to show that, it is True.

Again, you are conflate Truth (is the statement True) with is it Known
(proven) or Knowable (Provable).

Your lack of understanding of this shows you don't even really
understand what Knowledge is.

>
>>
>> Your confusion on this means the rest of your statements are meaningless.
>>
>>>
>>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>> *Key element of the Tarski Undefinability proof*
>>>
>>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>>>   ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
>>> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
>>> ∃x (~Provable(x) ↔ True(x)) is simply false
>>>
>>> The next one is a little more accurate because Tarski does not bother to
>>> carefully keep track of whether an expression is encoded in his theory
>>> or his meta-theory. F is the formal system (AKA theory) that G is
>>> referring to.
>>>
>>> G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
>>> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
>>> ∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G)) is simply false
>>>
>>> Within the foundation of analytical truth an expression of language is
>>> only true if it is either stipulated to be true or derived by applying
>>> truth preserving operations to expressions of language having the
>>> semantic property of Boolean true.
>>>
>>> Stipulated to be true is Haskell Curry elementary theorems of formal
>>> systems or verified facts of natural language.
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>
>>
>

On 12/17/22 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 11:29 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between
>>>>>> Truth
>>>>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>>>>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin
>>>>> full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know
>>>>> how to separate them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>>>>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of the
>>>> nature of Truth.
>>>>
>>>> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
>>>> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and False
>>>> (or not True).
>>> This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why are
>>> you equating "not True" with False?
>>>
>>
>> Because if a statement is a Truth Bearer, its only possibe values are
>> True or False. There is no other option. PERIOD.
>>
>> We might not know the value of it, but it has one.
>
> Elements of the body of analytic truth are only true on the basis of
> their semantic connections to other elements. When some of these
> connections are unknown then these elements are in the body of truth yet
> missing from the body of knowledge.
>

And the problem is you are talking about fields that don't limit
themselves to "analytic truth".

On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/16/22 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is
>>>>>>>>>>> it not an
>>>>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can
>>>>>>>>>>> be a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on
>>>>>>>>>>> the implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a
>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology, which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of
>>>>>>>>>> a cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to
>>>>>>>>>> me. When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed
>>>>>>>>>> by its thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in
>>>>>>>>> different groups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>>>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a
>>>>>> formula
>>>>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible
>>>>> interpetation, but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression,
>>>>> depending on the interpreation put into the words.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That
>>>>>> mammals are
>>>>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> animal
>>>>    |
>>>> mammal
>>>>    | |
>>>>    | canine
>>>>    | |
>>>>    | dog
>>>>    |
>>>> feline
>>>>    |
>>>>   cat
>>>>
>>>>> A cat is a feline
>>>>> A cat is a mammal
>>>>>
>>>>> A dog is a canine
>>>>> A dog is a mammal
>>>>>
>>>>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>>>>
>>>>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal
>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whch means that the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
>>> groups" NOT a Tautology, but possibly an True Analytical Expression
>>
>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a
>> formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>
>> If anyone "interprets" that cats are dogs they are necessarily
>> incorrect. Cats are not dogs is true in every interpretation.
>>
>
> You are still showing you aren't reading what I am writing, possibly
> because you are too stupid.
>
> I NEVER said cats were dogs.
>
> I said that cats and dogs can belong to the same animal group (like
> Mammal) or they could be in diferent animal groups (Feline and Canine)
>
> This means the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
> >> groups" NOT a Tautology, but can be a True Analytic Statement in the
> right model.

I coined the term "semantic tautology" and it means elements of the body
of analytic truth that are known to be true entirely on the basis of
their semantic connections to other elements in the body of analytic
truth. A CAT is and ANIMAL is a semantic tautology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_tautology&redirect=no

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

On 12/17/22 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/16/2022 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/16/22 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. That is just your failure to understand what it Truth, and
>>>>>> are confusing it with Knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your definition lead to inconsistencies like ending up with
>>>>>> statements for which no proof exists but are not Unprovable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True/false/not a truth bearer/currently unknown
>>>>
>>>> "Currently Unknown" is NOT a valut of Truth, but Knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Inconsistencies are screened out as not elements of the set of
>>>>> truth in
>>>>> the correction to the foundation of analytical truth that I propose.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing Truth with knowledge.
>>>
>>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>> KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH
>>>
>>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>>> I have said that before and you were unable to remember what I said.
>>
>> Since KNOWLEDGE ⊂ TRUTH it is thus not equal to it, why do you try to
>> limit truth to what is known?
>>
>
> My goal is to correct the erroneous understanding of the nature of truth
> so that Davidson truth conditional semantics can be anchored in a
> formalized notion of truth. Since we cannot fully elaborate every single
> detail of unknown truth we must work with the subset that we do have.

And you are doing it wrong.

>
>> You statement says there ARE things that are True but not known.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand set theory.
>>
>> You are proving you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>
> I am defining brand new things that cannot be verified by looking them
> up in textbooks. People that only know these things on the basis of
> learned-by-rote count all brand new knowledge as error because they
> cannot find this brand new knowledge in any textbook.

Then you need to start at the beginning are show that everything you
want to use is compatible with your new definitions.

>
> The entire body of analytic truth is a set of expressions of language
> that are only true on the basis of their semantic connections to other
> expressions of language. This means that every element of analytic truth
> is provable on the basis of tracing these semantic connections.

And then you try to apply that to fields that don't limit themselves to
analyatic TRUTH.

>
> Some of these elements may have unknown semantic connections such that
> they cannot be proved until these semantic connections are known. These
> elements are in the body of truth, yet not in the body of knowledge.

Right, but we KNOW that some of these ARE Truth-Bearers, things like can
a statement be proven (as either a proof IS construable from the system,
or it can't), but actually proving a non-existence might not be possible
because it requires going through an infinite space.

>
>> You are just proving yourself unqualified to talk about such things.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You admit you are not all-knowing, so you are showing your
>>>> ignoorance when you claim that Knowledge == Truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you are proving you don't know the difference between the two,
>>>> you have disqualified yourself in the field.
>>>
>>
>