On 2/24/24 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2024 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/24/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2024 5:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/24 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2024 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifying the return type for a computable function.
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't the fact that True is defined as a "Predicate" do that?
>>>>
>>>> Predicates, BY DEFINITION, only return true or false.
>>>
>>> This predicate is defined as a computable function, thus requiring
>>> that a return type be specified.
>>
>> Nope,
>>
>> PREDICATE ==> return type of the predicate is a Truth Value.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why as the language given as a "parameter"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So that it is universal.
>>>>
>>>> But why is a SEPARATE parameter?
>>>
>>> The AI mind has no idea what language you are referring to unless told.
>>
>> What AI Mind?
>>
>> Note, that is why I was using the L: qualifier on the statement to
>> define the Language it was expressed in.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what does Boolean True(L, x) return as a Truth value when x is
>>>>>> defined as the expression:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ Boolean True(L, x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boolean True(L, x) means that x is true in L can be computed on the
>>>>> basis of L.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your syntactically incorrect expression cannot be computed on the
>>>>> basis of L. It is incorrect to negate the type of return value.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it "incorrect" to negate a truth value?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are not negating truth value.
>>> You are negating return value type.
>>
>> NO, I am negating the return VALUE.
>>
>> Do you not understand how expression work.
>>
>> The predicate True() doesn't return a TYPE it returns a VALUE.
>>
>> You are just proving yourself to be Stupid.
>>
>> Stupid("Peter Olcott") is TRUE.
>>
>>>
>>>> When do you EVER state the return type in the USE of a function?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In all of the code that I write the function must be declared.
>>>
>>> More literally:
>>> Boolean True(GUID Language, Text_String S)
>>
>> Right, when you declare the function, not when you USE the function.
>>
>> Note, your example isn't being give "Values" as parameters, but the
>> types and an (optionsal) name for it.
>>
>>>
>>>> Your parser must be off, maybe because your grammer is broken. ~ is
>>>> applied to the results of Boolean True(L, x)
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I need ro say:
>>>>
>>>> ~ (Boolean True(L, x))
>>>>
>>>> To make it clearer to your defective parser.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We hypothesize that Boolean True(L, x) has all of the general
>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language that is known
>>>>> to mankind and has reasoning ability at least equal to the best
>>>>> human experts in each field.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it is supposed to be a predicate about TRUTH, not KNOWLEDGE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No expression of language is true unless it satisfies some
>>> a criterion measure.
>>
>> And the meaning of "True" in a Formal logic system is defined by the
>> definition of logic.
>
> Not when this proves to be incoherent.
> Incoherence is the only correct way to reject definitions.
>

You aren't allowed to "reject definitions" in formal logic system

PERIOD.

All you can do is move to a different system.

You have been invited to do this, but you seem to not understand that.

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