1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • Re: Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox

    From Mild Shock@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Jan 26 21:05:35 2024
    I swear I read Rosa Parks!

    But it says Ross.a.Finlayson. Whats the a
    for? Does its stand for asshole spammer?

    Ross Finlayson schrieb:
    The well-foundedness and well-ordering not being exactly the same,
    makes for that it's pragmatic for axiomatic set theory and descriptive set theory,
    to stipulate via fiat one fact, which is that there's a well-founded inductive set,
    Axiom of Infinity, though that free comprehension simply arrives at their being multiplicities and somehow, "infra-consistent", the objects that exist, with respect to their singularities and principal branches variously, about why there are singularities in set theory, in singularity theory,
    which is multiplicity theory.
    And it seemed so nice, ....


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Jan 28 12:02:00 2024
    On 2024-01-24 17:46:55 +0000, olcott said:

    *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox* https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
    "x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248

    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
    "x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248

    is encoded as: x ∉ True if and only if p
    "where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"

    before it has been transformed page 275
    we replace 'Tr' in this convention by 'Pr'

    thus becomes // on page 275
    "(1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p"
    "where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"

    *Proving that the Tarski Undefinability has an adapted*
    *form of the Liar Paradox as the first line of his proof*

    That is not the first line of the proof. A large part of
    the proof is proven before that line.

    The main parts of the proof are:
    (a) if there is a truth formul then a paradox can be proven
    (b) a paradox is not true
    from (a) and (b) by modus tollens
    there is no truth formula

    So the provable paradox is at the end of the part a,
    not in its beginning.

    As you have pointed no error in the proof of (a) we may
    assume that you agree with it. You seem to agree with
    (b), too. Modus tollens is regarded valid because we
    have never observed any situation where some P is true
    and some Q is false and P->Q is true.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)