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)

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 as the language given as a "parameter"?
>

So that it is universal.

> 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.

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.

--
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 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.

>
>>
>> Why as the language given as a "parameter"?
>>
>
> So that it is universal.

But why is a SEPARATE parameter?

>
>> 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?

When do you EVER state the return type in the USE of a function?

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.

If limited by knowledge, it can't be complete, as many things are true
that are not know yet.

You seem to have a very low "opinion" of the power of logic.

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.

>>
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>>
>>> 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.

> 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)

> 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.

An AI mind having all the knowledge known to humankind cannot
be tricked by epistemological antinomies.

> If limited by knowledge, it can't be complete, as many things are true
> that are not know yet.
>
> You seem to have a very low "opinion" of the power of logic.

That logicians do not understand that epistemological antinomies
don't prove a damn thing means that they are mindless robots programmed
with math dogma.

--
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 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.

>
> An AI mind having all the knowledge known to humankind cannot
> be tricked by epistemological antinomies.

Nope. You are confusing Knowledge with Truth again.

>
>> If limited by knowledge, it can't be complete, as many things are true
>> that are not know yet.
>>
>> You seem to have a very low "opinion" of the power of logic.
>
> That logicians do not understand that epistemological antinomies
> don't prove a damn thing means that they are mindless robots programmed
> with math dogma.
>

Nope, you are just showing you don't understand how logic works.

I guess you are just admitting that you have just been lying that you
knew what you were doing for the past decades, and are now admitting
that you are just to totally ignorant, hypocritical, pathologically
lying idiot.

You are admitting that by refusing to answer the SIMPLE uestions given
to you that you are claiming you have the answer to.

]

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.

--
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 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.
>

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 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.

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and
'false in Russell's system' means:
the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

We simply change false to mean unproved in in Russell's
system thus untrue in Russell's system.

Then Undecidability ceases to exist.

--
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 3:06 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.
>
> 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
> proved in Russell's system; and
> 'false in Russell's system' means:
> the opposite has been proved in Russell's system
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>
> We simply change false to mean unproved in in Russell's
> system thus untrue in Russell's system.
>
> Then Undecidability ceases to exist.
>
>

Except that isn't the meaning of True or False in Russell's system.

Wittgenstein was just trying to hold on to the disproven concept that
all Truth was Provable.

Note, you CAN'T use "not proven" as that can change over time if a proof
is discoered, and Truth is generally considered a static immutable
property of a statement (it might be context dependent, or dependent on
something that changes in time, but unless something it refers to
changes, it can't change its value).

For instance, the Collatz conjecture can't be "false" because it hasn't
been proven, as that would make the anti-Collatz conjecture "true" even
though it hasn't been proven.

Your definition conflate KNOWLEDGE with FACT.

On 24/02/24 18:17, 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.
>
>> 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.
>

That's incorrect. If there is something wrong with S, then True(L, S) is
false, so ¬True(L, S) is true, so S is true.

>>
>> 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 24/02/24 21:24, 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*
>
>
Truth criteria for S: ¬True(L, S):
(1) True(L, S) is false

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.