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.

You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
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 11:00 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.
>
> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
> is not a truth bearer.
>

Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.

You are just PROVING your stupidity.

You are a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger.

On 2/24/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/24 11:00 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.
>>
>> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
>> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
>> is not a truth bearer.
>>
>
> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>
> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>
> You are a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger.

The fact that my idea that you reverse-engineered after
my incessant prompting does correctly handle epistemological
antinomies, does refute any proof that relies on them
to show undecidability. Tarski is one of those proofs.

Wikipedia shows that Tarski relies on the Liar Paradox
thus confirming my own assessment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form

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

On 2/25/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 11:00 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.
>>>
>>> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
>>> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
>>> is not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>
>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>
>> You are a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger.
>
> The fact that my idea that you reverse-engineered after
> my incessant prompting does correctly handle epistemological
> antinomies, does refute any proof that relies on them
> to show undecidability. Tarski is one of those proofs.
>
> Wikipedia shows that Tarski relies on the Liar Paradox
> thus confirming my own assessment.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>

On 2/25/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 11:00 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.
>>>
>>> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
>>> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
>>> is not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>
>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>
>> You are a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger.
>
> The fact that my idea that you reverse-engineered after
> my incessant prompting does correctly handle epistemological
> antinomies, does refute any proof that relies on them
> to show undecidability. Tarski is one of those proofs.
>
> Wikipedia shows that Tarski relies on the Liar Paradox
> thus confirming my own assessment.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>

You LIE when you say you "invented" it, as it was ALWAYS the definition
of a predicate. P(x) determines if x has the property of the predicate,
and if so returns true, and if not returns false, so for a non-truth
bearing statement, True(x) would return false, and False(x) would also
return false as the non-truth bearing sentence is not false either.

You just don't understand the difference between a Truth Predicate and a
truth-value.

Yes, he uses the FORM of the Liar, but in a way that is valid, since the
result of a predicate is always a truth value.

On 2/25/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/25/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/24 11:00 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.
>>>>
>>>> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
>>>> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
>>>> is not a truth bearer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>
>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>
>>> You are a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger.
>>
>> The fact that my idea that you reverse-engineered after
>> my incessant prompting does correctly handle epistemological
>> antinomies, does refute any proof that relies on them
>> to show undecidability. Tarski is one of those proofs.
>>
>> Wikipedia shows that Tarski relies on the Liar Paradox
>> thus confirming my own assessment.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>>
>
> You LIE when you say you "invented" it, as it was ALWAYS the definition
> of a predicate.

When I say that I invented something I mean that the original source
of the idea to me was my own thoughts.

If it always was the definition of a predicate then Tarski
and Gödel become liars rather than merely stupid. If they
knew that epistemological antinomies must be rejected and
still based proofs upon them that makes them liars.

Because many modern philosophers still don't even know
that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer I don't
think that Gödel and Tarski were liars.

There is only one correct way to deal with epistemological antinomies
in formal proofs, recognize them and reject them as semantically
invalid.

Both Gödel and Tarski were too stupid to do that.

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

On 2/25/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/25/24 12:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 11:00 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
>>>>> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
>>>>> is not a truth bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you don't understand what he is saying.
>>>>
>>>> You are just PROVING your stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> You are a textbook example of Dunning-Kruger.
>>>
>>> The fact that my idea that you reverse-engineered after
>>> my incessant prompting does correctly handle epistemological
>>> antinomies, does refute any proof that relies on them
>>> to show undecidability. Tarski is one of those proofs.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia shows that Tarski relies on the Liar Paradox
>>> thus confirming my own assessment.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem#General_form
>>>
>>
>> You LIE when you say you "invented" it, as it was ALWAYS the
>> definition of a predicate.
>
> When I say that I invented something I mean that the original source
> of the idea to me was my own thoughts.
>
> If it always was the definition of a predicate then Tarski
> and Gödel become liars rather than merely stupid. If they
> knew that epistemological antinomies must be rejected and
> still based proofs upon them that makes them liars.

Nope.

YOU became the liar because you accuse them of something they didn't do.

>
> Because many modern philosophers still don't even know
> that the Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer I don't
> think that Gödel and Tarski were liars.
>
> There is only one correct way to deal with epistemological antinomies
> in formal proofs, recognize them and reject them as semantically
> invalid.
>
> Both Gödel and Tarski were too stupid to do that.
>

Nope, YOU are too stupid to understand the logic they used.

And too stupid to even understand that statement.

Perfect Dunning-Kruger example.

On 25/02/24 05:00, 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.
>
> You beat Tarski at this. One of the leading experts on
> truthmaker maximalism isn't even sure that the Liar Paradox
> is not a truth bearer.
>

Because all logical formulas are truth bearers and the Liar Paradox is
not a logical formula.