1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • Re: Defining problems to make solutions impossible --- Nazi Lies

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Mar 18 16:38:32 2025
    On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except >>>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
    That does not disprove Tarski.

    He said that this is impossible and no
    counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

    In addition saying so he proved so.

    If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either
    Tarski's proof be erroneous

    There is no counter-example in the set of human general
    knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
    True(X) does not work correctly...

    The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a definition >> and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or uncomputable >> predicates there may be more possibilities.

    When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
    to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
    as the actual smell of a rose.

    Irrelevant. We were discussing your false claim that does not involve
    empirical knowledge or smell or roses.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Mar 18 23:05:05 2025
    On 3/18/25 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/18/2025 9:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds >>>>>>>>> except
    for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
    That does not disprove Tarski.

    He said that this is impossible and no
    counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

    In addition saying so he proved so.

    If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either >>>>>> Tarski's proof be erroneous

    There is no counter-example in the set of human general
    knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
    True(X) does not work correctly...

    The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a
    definition
    and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or
    uncomputable
    predicates there may be more possibilities.


    The True(X) predicate simply walks the tree of knowledge.

    Which takes infinite work.


    When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
    to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
    as the actual smell of a rose.

    Irrelevant. We were discussing your false claim that does not involve
    empirical knowledge or smell or roses.


    Analytic(Olcott) simply means expressions of language
    that are shown to be true entirely on the basis of
    their connections to other expressions of language.

    And if it doesn't include things connected by an infinite chain of such inferences, it doesn't match the actual defintion of Truth, and can't
    handle a logic system that can express the properties of the Natural
    Numbers.


    When the finite set of all human general knowledge that
    can be expressed using language is connected together by
    truth preserving operations then True(X) cannot be shown
    to not function correctly for every element in this set.


    Sure it can. and Tarski did so.

    Unless you think that Human Knowledge doesn't include the ability to
    deal the the Natural Numbers, his proof holds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Mar 19 18:02:28 2025
    On 2025-03-19 00:09:38 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 9:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except >>>>>>>>> for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
    That does not disprove Tarski.

    He said that this is impossible and no
    counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

    In addition saying so he proved so.

    If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either >>>>>> Tarski's proof be erroneous

    There is no counter-example in the set of human general
    knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
    True(X) does not work correctly...

    The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a definition
    and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or uncomputable
    predicates there may be more possibilities.


    The True(X) predicate simply walks the tree of knowledge.

    When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
    to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
    as the actual smell of a rose.

    Irrelevant. We were discussing your false claim that does not involve
    empirical knowledge or smell or roses.


    Analytic(Olcott) simply means expressions of language
    that are shown to be true entirely on the basis of
    their connections to other expressions of language.

    By that definition and expression of the knowledge of the
    smell of rose is not analytic(Olcott).

    When the finite set of all human general knowledge that
    can be expressed using language is connected together by
    truth preserving operations then True(X) cannot be shown
    to not function correctly for every element in this set.

    Whether it does depends on the meaning of "works correctly".

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 20 00:39:21 2025
    Am Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:45:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 3/19/2025 11:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-19 00:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
    On 3/18/2025 9:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:
    On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:
    On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:
    On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds >>>>>>>>>>> except for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
    That does not disprove Tarski.
    He said that this is impossible and no counter-examples exists >>>>>>>>> that shows that I am wrong.
    In addition saying so he proved so.
    If there were a known counter example one could suspect that
    either Tarski's proof be erroneous
    There is no counter-example in the set of human general knowledge >>>>>>> that can be expressed using language such that True(X) does not
    work correctly...
    The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a
    definition and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow
    unexpressible or uncomputable predicates there may be more
    possibilities.
    The True(X) predicate simply walks the tree of knowledge.

    When I say "expressed using language" I am referring to elements of
    the set of empirical knowledge such as the actual smell of a rose.
    Irrelevant. We were discussing your false claim that does not involve
    empirical knowledge or smell or roses.
    Analytic(Olcott) simply means expressions of language that are shown
    to be true entirely on the basis of their connections to other
    expressions of language.
    By that definition and expression of the knowledge of the smell of rose
    is not analytic(Olcott).
    Thus True(X) cannot operate on the smell of a rose because it is not in
    the set of human general knowledge that can be expressed in language.
    A molecular sensor might convert the smell of a rose to some form of language. Then a True(X) predicate could correctly determine whether or
    not some X smells like a rose.
    Oh, but "the smell of a rose" is different from "does this smell like
    a rose". Sneaky.

    When the finite set of all human general knowledge that can be
    expressed using language is connected together by truth preserving
    operations then True(X) cannot be shown to not function correctly for
    every element in this set.
    Whether it does depends on the meaning of "works correctly".
    The best that Tarski could say about this is conform to some intuitive
    notion of true.
    Once the entire set of human general knowledge that can be expressed
    using language is fully encoded in a tree of knowledge then True(X) is
    not much more than a tree walk.
    True(X) never gets fooled by any paradox these all simply return ~TRUE.
    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Mar 19 21:58:44 2025
    On 3/19/25 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/19/2025 11:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-19 00:09:38 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 9:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always
    succeeds except
    for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
    That does not disprove Tarski.

    He said that this is impossible and no
    counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

    In addition saying so he proved so.

    If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either >>>>>>>> Tarski's proof be erroneous

    There is no counter-example in the set of human general
    knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
    True(X) does not work correctly...

    The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a
    definition
    and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or
    uncomputable
    predicates there may be more possibilities.


    The True(X) predicate simply walks the tree of knowledge.

    When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
    to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
    as the actual smell of a rose.

    Irrelevant. We were discussing your false claim that does not involve
    empirical knowledge or smell or roses.


    Analytic(Olcott) simply means expressions of language
    that are shown to be true entirely on the basis of
    their connections to other expressions of language.

    By that definition and expression of the knowledge of the
    smell of rose is not analytic(Olcott).


    Thus True(X) cannot operate on the smell of a rose
    because it is not in the set of human general knowledge
    that can be expressed in language.

    It depends on if the "smell of a rose" is something that can actually be expressed as a statement with a truth value in the langugage.


    A molecular sensor might convert the smell of a rose
    to some form of language. Then a True(X) predicate
    could correctly determine whether or not some X
    smells like a rose.

    Which is all just a side tangent. Tarski shows that True(x) can't handle
    the particular x that he refers to (somewhat indirectly by referencing
    the results of a previous proof)


    When the finite set of all human general knowledge that
    can be expressed using language is connected together by
    truth preserving operations then True(X) cannot be shown
    to not function correctly for every element in this set.

    Whether it does depends on the meaning of "works correctly".


    The best that Tarski could say about this is conform
    to some intuitive notion of true.

    Nope, he fully defines what he means by truth.


    Once the entire set of human general knowledge that can
    be expressed using language is fully encoded in a tree
    of knowledge then True(X) is not much more than a tree walk.
    True(X) never gets fooled by any paradox these all
    simply return ~TRUE.


    Except then your True can only answer about KNOWN truths, not ALL
    truths, as not all truths are known.

    That has been one of your fundamental problems, you don't understand
    what truth actaully is.

    There *ARE* True statement whose truth value is unknown, and some whose
    truth value is unknowable, but they still HAVE that truth value.

    That this is beyond your understanding, and you refuse to understand
    that problem, just shows your utter stupidity,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Mar 20 12:12:28 2025
    On 2025-03-19 23:45:39 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/19/2025 11:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-19 00:09:38 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 9:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-18 13:59:21 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/18/2025 8:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-17 15:52:59 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/17/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-03-16 15:12:03 +0000, olcott said:

    On 3/16/2025 7:36 AM, joes wrote:
    Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:43:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

    We can define a correct True(X) predicate that always succeeds except
    for unknowns and untruths, Tarski WAS WRONG !!!
    That does not disprove Tarski.

    He said that this is impossible and no
    counter-examples exists that shows that I am wrong.

    In addition saying so he proved so.

    If there were a known counter example one could suspect that either >>>>>>>> Tarski's proof be erroneous

    There is no counter-example in the set of human general
    knowledge that can be expressed using language such that
    True(X) does not work correctly...

    The truth predicate as discussed Tarski cannot be espressed as a definition
    and therefore cannot be computed. If you allow unexpressible or uncomputable
    predicates there may be more possibilities.


    The True(X) predicate simply walks the tree of knowledge.

    When I say "expressed using language" I am referring
    to elements of the set of empirical knowledge such
    as the actual smell of a rose.

    Irrelevant. We were discussing your false claim that does not involve
    empirical knowledge or smell or roses.


    Analytic(Olcott) simply means expressions of language
    that are shown to be true entirely on the basis of
    their connections to other expressions of language.

    By that definition and expression of the knowledge of the
    smell of rose is not analytic(Olcott).

    Thus True(X) cannot operate on the smell of a rose
    because it is not in the set of human general knowledge
    that can be expressed in language.

    We can say that this rose has no odor at all and that rose
    has the usual odor of a rose.

    A molecular sensor might convert the smell of a rose
    to some form of language. Then a True(X) predicate
    could correctly determine whether or not some X
    smells like a rose.

    That should be tested after the True(X) predicate is published.
    Or something similar.

    When the finite set of all human general knowledge that
    can be expressed using language is connected together by
    truth preserving operations then True(X) cannot be shown
    to not function correctly for every element in this set.

    Whether it does depends on the meaning of "works correctly".

    The best that Tarski could say about this is conform
    to some intuitive notion of true.

    Tarski said nothing about that. He was talking about a theories
    with more modest scope but sufficiently rich to express the
    relation of a formula and its proof. A theory of natural numbers
    is an example of the theories Tarski was talking about.

    Once the entire set of human general knowledge that can
    be expressed using language is fully encoded in a tree
    of knowledge then True(X) is not much more than a tree walk.
    True(X) never gets fooled by any paradox these all
    simply return ~TRUE.

    That method cannot answer in finite time certain questions about
    natural numbers.

    --
    Mikko

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