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

That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.

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

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

Why have you had to do that?

That is the way it has always been.

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

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

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

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

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

Nope, lets take it step by step.

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

Correct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not True(L: S)

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

Right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we have the statement:

S: ~True(L: S)

What is its truth value?

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, this must not be true.

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

That is Tarski's proof.

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

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

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

False indicates that S is an Epistemological antinomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 2/24/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has a
>>>>>>>>>>> negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S
>>>>>>>>>>> is True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in
>>>>>>>>> the system, and will have the value of True if S is a False
>>>>>>>>> statement, or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always has
>>>>>>> a truth value of True or False (and never isn't a truth-bearer)
>>>>>>> then what if we define S to be it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>>>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>>>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>>>>
>>>>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then
>>>>> True(L: S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some
>>>>> inputs, it is not a truth bearer.
>>>>
>>>> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
>>>> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>>>>
>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate, get
>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> In L: S: ~True(L: S) shows that if True(L: S) decides that S is an
>>> Epistemological Antinomy and returns false, then S is actually True,
>>> and thus NOT an Epistemological Antinomy, as they are neither True or
>>> False.
>>
>> "This sentence is not true."
>> is not true and an Epistemological Antinomy, thus remains not
>> true even though it claims to be not true and this claim has been met.
>>
>
> Right, but doesn't negate that, in L:  S= ~True(L: S), the predicate
> True can't return a correct value, and thus can't be an actual predicate.
>

On 2/24/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a True statement, or False if S is a False Statement, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has
>>>>>>>>>>>> a negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if S
>>>>>>>>>>>> is True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in
>>>>>>>>>> the system, and will have the value of True if S is a False
>>>>>>>>>> statement, or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always
>>>>>>>> has a truth value of True or False (and never isn't a
>>>>>>>> truth-bearer) then what if we define S to be it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>>>>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>>>>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then
>>>>>> True(L: S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be
>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some
>>>>>> inputs, it is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
>>>>> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True Predicate,
>>>>> get
>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> In L: S: ~True(L: S) shows that if True(L: S) decides that S is an
>>>> Epistemological Antinomy and returns false, then S is actually True,
>>>> and thus NOT an Epistemological Antinomy, as they are neither True
>>>> or False.
>>>
>>> "This sentence is not true."
>>> is not true and an Epistemological Antinomy, thus remains not
>>> true even though it claims to be not true and this claim has been met.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but doesn't negate that, in L:  S= ~True(L: S), the predicate
>> True can't return a correct value, and thus can't be an actual predicate.
>>
>
> Even when answering whether or not correctly determining
> that an input is an epistemological antinomy cannot be fooled.
>
> *Epistemological antinomies are ALWAYS correctly recognized*
> Boolean True(L, x)
> truth criteria has not been met in L for x and
> truth criteria has not been met in L for ~x
>
> *A correct rebuttal to the above cannot possibly exist*
>
>

On 2/24/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2024 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 11:16 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this is comp.theory, here's a theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion: write a markov chain program to argue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with olcott.  Epirical evidence suggests that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this program would never halt, at least until the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat death of the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Dan C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't even get these people to agree that lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological antinomies must be rejected as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically invalid input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you just don't understand what people are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO ONE claims that lies are true (except it seems you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get "rejected" in a sense, the predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what I have been proposing for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you had to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the way it has always been.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you just don't understand what you have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the one that Tarski says is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have it recorded it as my solution in this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right here years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, lets take it step by step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, S) (if it exists) will have the value True if S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a True statement, or False if S is a False Statement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or doesn't have a truth value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and I quoted your original words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my exact design (from years ago) for making a truth*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *predicate that refutes the Tarski Undefinability Theorem*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So True(L: S) is a statement in L, and thus (assuming L has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a negation predicate) so is the statemetment:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not True(L: S)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which will be True if S is False or Nonsense, and False if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> S is True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "this sentence is not true.") false
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean True(English, "~(this sentence is not true.)") false
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore Epistemological antinomy detected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, True(L: S) and True(L: ~S) will both be false for an
>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy. That is a given.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *That it is a given that you and I and no one else understands*
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski did not understand this and Gödel did not understand this
>>>>>>>>>> and many modern philosophers of logic also do not understand
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, do you admit that "~True(L: S)" is a valid statement in
>>>>>>>>>>> the system, and will have the value of True if S is a False
>>>>>>>>>>> statement, or is non-sense, and False if S is a True statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes your reasoning is correct and anchored in my work from
>>>>>>>>>> years ago as documented in these forums.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of answering will be taken as an admission that you
>>>>>>>>>>> recognize that you are trapped and your logic broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My logic has always been correct and you are the first person
>>>>>>>>>> to recognize this when my logic is applied to creating a correct
>>>>>>>>>> and consistent truth predicate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, Since ""~True(L: S)" is a valid statment in L, and always
>>>>>>>>> has a truth value of True or False (and never isn't a
>>>>>>>>> truth-bearer) then what if we define S to be it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proclaiming that an expression is a truth bearer has no
>>>>>>>> effect what-so-ever when the fact is that S is not a truth
>>>>>>>> bearer. False assumptions have no power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If S, the statement "~True(L:S)" is not a truth-bearer, then
>>>>>>> True(L: S) is not a truth bearer, and thus not a predicate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus you have just proven the point you were claiming to be
>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(L: S) can not exist as a predicate, as, at least for some
>>>>>>> inputs, it is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(L, x) <is> a correct and consistent truth predicate when we
>>>>>> use your version of my idea from years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/23/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>  > Yes, Epistemological antinomies, when given to a True
>>>>>> Predicate, get
>>>>>>  > "rejected" in a sense, the predicate returns FALSE.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > That doesn't mean the statement is false, just that it isn't true.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > It also doesn't mean the predicate doesn't answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> In L: S: ~True(L: S) shows that if True(L: S) decides that S is an
>>>>> Epistemological Antinomy and returns false, then S is actually
>>>>> True, and thus NOT an Epistemological Antinomy, as they are neither
>>>>> True or False.
>>>>
>>>> "This sentence is not true."
>>>> is not true and an Epistemological Antinomy, thus remains not
>>>> true even though it claims to be not true and this claim has been met.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but doesn't negate that, in L:  S= ~True(L: S), the predicate
>>> True can't return a correct value, and thus can't be an actual
>>> predicate.
>>>
>>
>> Even when answering whether or not correctly determining
>> that an input is an epistemological antinomy cannot be fooled.
>>
>> *Epistemological antinomies are ALWAYS correctly recognized*
>> Boolean True(L, x)
>> truth criteria has not been met in L for x and
>> truth criteria has not been met in L for ~x
>>
>> *A correct rebuttal to the above cannot possibly exist*
>>
>>
>
> So, you are just admitting you don't see the problem, because you are
> just too stupid.
>
> What does True(L:S) return in the following statement?

On 2/24/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>> Right, but doesn't negate that, in L:  S= ~True(L: S), the predicate
>>>> True can't return a correct value, and thus can't be an actual
>>>> predicate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even when answering whether or not correctly determining
>>> that an input is an epistemological antinomy cannot be fooled.
>>>
>>> *Epistemological antinomies are ALWAYS correctly recognized*
>>> Boolean True(L, x)
>>> truth criteria has not been met in L for x and
>>> truth criteria has not been met in L for ~x
>>>
>>> *A correct rebuttal to the above cannot possibly exist*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, you are just admitting you don't see the problem, because you are
>> just too stupid.
>>
>> What does True(L:S) return in the following statement?
>
> First of all it is Boolean True(L, S) parameters
> are not separated by colons.

Nope.

Where do you get that from?

Who ever writes "Boolean" in from of the use of a predicate?

L is the Domain that S is to be interpreted in, not a "seperate" parameter.

Maybe you would perfer:

in L: S := ~True(L: S)

>
>>
>> In L: S = ~True(L:S)
>>
>
> If you are assigning the value of ~True(L:S) to S then
> Boolean True(L, S) returns false indicating that S
> cannot be correctly resolved to a truth value in S.

No, we are assign to S the STATEMENT ~True(L:S)

>
> The truth teller paradox cannot be correctly resolved to a truth value.

So, you admit there is no Truth Predicate.

IF S has no truth value, then True(L:S) must return false.

But then S is, by definition a true statement, being evaluated to the
complement of falsehood.

>
> LP := "This sentence is not true."
> ~LP == "This sentence is true."
>
>>
>> If True(L:S) is false, then S is true, so you just had
>> True(L:true statement) return false, and was wrong.
>>
>>
>

On 2/24/2024 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>>> Right, but doesn't negate that, in L:  S= ~True(L: S), the
>>>>> predicate True can't return a correct value, and thus can't be an
>>>>> actual predicate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even when answering whether or not correctly determining
>>>> that an input is an epistemological antinomy cannot be fooled.
>>>>
>>>> *Epistemological antinomies are ALWAYS correctly recognized*
>>>> Boolean True(L, x)
>>>> truth criteria has not been met in L for x and
>>>> truth criteria has not been met in L for ~x
>>>>
>>>> *A correct rebuttal to the above cannot possibly exist*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are just admitting you don't see the problem, because you are
>>> just too stupid.
>>>
>>> What does True(L:S) return in the following statement?
>>
>> First of all it is Boolean True(L, S) parameters
>> are not separated by colons.
>
> Nope.
>
> Where do you get that from?
>
> Who ever writes "Boolean" in from of the use of a predicate?
>
> L is the Domain that S is to be interpreted in, not a "seperate" parameter.
>
> Maybe you would perfer:
>
> in L: S := ~True(L: S)
>
>>
>>>
>>> In L: S = ~True(L:S)
>>>
>>
>> If you are assigning the value of ~True(L:S) to S then
>> Boolean True(L, S) returns false indicating that S
>> cannot be correctly resolved to a truth value in S.
>
> No, we are assign to S the STATEMENT ~True(L:S)
>
>>
>> The truth teller paradox cannot be correctly resolved to a truth value.
>
> So, you admit there is no Truth Predicate.
>
> IF S has no truth value, then True(L:S) must return false.
>
> But then S is, by definition a true statement, being evaluated to the
> complement of falsehood.

When a truth predicate is defined as Boolean True(L, x)
then every expression in L that can be shown to be true
in L *by some criterion measure* returns true and everything
else returns false.

"This sentence is true." specifies infinite recursion
and is not a truth bearer.

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

On 2/24/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 3:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Right, but doesn't negate that, in L:  S= ~True(L: S), the
>>>>>> predicate True can't return a correct value, and thus can't be an
>>>>>> actual predicate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even when answering whether or not correctly determining
>>>>> that an input is an epistemological antinomy cannot be fooled.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Epistemological antinomies are ALWAYS correctly recognized*
>>>>> Boolean True(L, x)
>>>>> truth criteria has not been met in L for x and
>>>>> truth criteria has not been met in L for ~x
>>>>>
>>>>> *A correct rebuttal to the above cannot possibly exist*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just admitting you don't see the problem, because you
>>>> are just too stupid.
>>>>
>>>> What does True(L:S) return in the following statement?
>>>
>>> First of all it is Boolean True(L, S) parameters
>>> are not separated by colons.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Where do you get that from?
>>
>> Who ever writes "Boolean" in from of the use of a predicate?
>>
>> L is the Domain that S is to be interpreted in, not a "seperate"
>> parameter.
>>
>> Maybe you would perfer:
>>
>> in L: S := ~True(L: S)
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In L: S = ~True(L:S)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you are assigning the value of ~True(L:S) to S then
>>> Boolean True(L, S) returns false indicating that S
>>> cannot be correctly resolved to a truth value in S.
>>
>> No, we are assign to S the STATEMENT ~True(L:S)
>>
>>>
>>> The truth teller paradox cannot be correctly resolved to a truth value.
>>
>> So, you admit there is no Truth Predicate.
>>
>> IF S has no truth value, then True(L:S) must return false.
>>
>> But then S is, by definition a true statement, being evaluated to the
>> complement of falsehood.
>
> When a truth predicate is defined as Boolean True(L, x)
> then every expression in L that can be shown to be true
> in L *by some criterion measure* returns true and everything
> else returns false.
>
> "This sentence is true." specifies infinite recursion
> and is not a truth bearer.
>

What do you mean by "Defining it as Boolean True(L, x)"?

What significance does the word "Boolean" mean in it.

Why as the language given as a "parameter"?

So, what does Boolean True(L, x) return as a Truth value when x is
defined as the expression:

~ Boolean True(L, x)