On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 11:53:16 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
FROM HIS PROOF!
He first does a lot of work to establish a number of properties.
In other words you agree that Tarski did "prove" that the notion of >>>> Truth cannot be fully formalized on a fundamental basis directly
related
to the Liar Paradox?
Only in the sense that since we KNOW the Liar's paradox can't be
true, and a "Definition of Truth" (not a "notion of Truth) would lead >>> to being able to prove that the Liar's paradox is true,
That is ridiculous.
Why? Do you think the Liar's Paradox should be provable to be True?
The Liar Paradox is not a truth bearer, END-OF-STORY !!!
You seem to want to put him down for "basing" his proof on a contradiction, but he isn't basing it in the way you want to do so.
You are just stuck trying to push a LIE, but can't quite figure out how
to do it.
Sorry, you are just too stupid to handle logic.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
None of this puts food on the table.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)