1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • Re: Truth and its absence

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Jan 26 12:57:08 2024
    On 2024-01-26 02:10:54 +0000, olcott said:

    On 1/25/2024 7:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 2:21:31 PM UTC-8, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 1/25/2024 3:21 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    In comp.theory olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 1/25/2024 2:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    In comp.theory olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 1/25/2024 3:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    In comp.theory olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 1/24/2024 3:36 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    In comp.theory olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 1/24/2024 3:10 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 1/24/2024 2:21 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    In comp.theory olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/2024 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

    [ .... ]

    You're lying. You do not understand it [proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction] at all. If I'm mistaken, feel free to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outline it in your reply, or give some other unambiguous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication you understand it.

    When we assume that X is possible and then prove that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in a contradiction then X is proven impossible.

    So, you've got some idea. It's not "possible" and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible", it's true and false. But all the indications >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are that you don't really understand it; all the libel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against mathematicians who use proof by contradiction, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to understand the basis of their results.

    When we falsely assume that a correct and consistent truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate must correctly determine the truth value of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non truth bearer, then this false assumption derives the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false conclusion that correct and consistent truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicate does not exist.

    But here you go right off the wall into incoherent rambling. >>>
    In other words you don't know what the term truth-bearer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means so this seems like nonsense to you.

    Where does that come from? I know full well what a truth >>>>>>>>>>>>> bearer is. I can only guess what you mean by your rambling. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If my guess is right, you're wrong, hopelessly wrong.

    *I will make it more explicit*

    The fact that this predicate:
    Boolean True(Formalized_English, "What time is it?") >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot return a correct Boolean value

    DOES NOT PROVE THAT A CORRECT AND CONSISTENT
    TRUTH PREDICATE DOES NOT EXIST.

    No, of course it doesn't. Who other than you said it does? The >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth predicate of Tarski's theorem cannot exist. This was >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven by contradiction, something you assert you understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But given you don't accept the result, it seems your >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding is, at best, superficial.

    THAT YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND THAT TARSKI'S LINE (1)
    ASSUMES THE LIAR PARADOX AS HIS BASIS IS NO ACTUAL
    REBUTTAL WHAT-SO-EVER.

    You don't understand proof by contradiction after all.

    Tarski was a top rate mathematician, you are not. His work has >>>>>>>>>>> been learnt, reviewed, checked, and tested by thousands, if not >>>>>>>>>>> millions, of capable mathematicians. It is correct.

    True(L, x) was proven to not exist on the basis of Tarski's line(1)
    that has been adapted from the Liar Paradox.

    My understanding of the theorem's proof is that it uses the liar >>>>>>>>>>> paradox merely as an absurdity.

    Conclusively proving ....

    Stop swearing! You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

    .... that you never carefully studied these four pages of his proof. >>>
    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

    I've never looked at his proof in my life.

    Yet keep saying that my understanding is incorrect entirely
    on the basis of the ad verecundiam fallacy.

    Yet another lie from you. I say you are wrong for several reasons, >>>>>>> repeated ad nauseam. That you don't accept proven mathematical results. >>>>>> {ad verecundiam fallacy}

    That your intellectual prowess is insufficient for understanding the >>>>>>> reasoning involved. That you are so contemptuous of learning and >>>>>>> expertise.

    {ad hominem fallacy}

    No. Look up what the ad hominem actually means.

    The "authority" I appeal to is mathematics, something you fail to >>>>>>> understand. Mathematics works by proving results.

    Bullshit you cannot even point out an error that I made
    because you refuse to look at the basis of my claim.

    I don't need to, because Tarski's theorem has been proven 100% beyond any >>>>> doubt.

    {ad verecundiam fallacy}
    No, just adherence to the truth.
    I am going to persistently hound you about this until you quit the shit. >>> Threatening harrassment is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions.

    One of the prime rules about dealing with cranks, quoted by yourself
    recently, I think, is never to go head to head with their arguments. You >>> are a crank of the first order.

    I've seen how you handle people who attempt to correct your falsehoods.
    You ignore them, and repeat the falsehoods until they give up. You tell
    lies about them, as you are doing to me in the Subject: line you have
    chosen. Ben has given up. Kaz has given up. So has André, so has Mike.
    Richard is still trying to help you, and Immibis is relatively new. You
    don't show any gratitude whatsoever.

    So let me repeat, 2 + 2 = 5 is false, and I'm not going to waste any time >>> engaging with your sophistry that it's true. If you think you are right, >>> write up your idea for publication in a peer-reviewed mathematics
    journal. If they publish it, then I will apologise and read it.
    *The first line of Tarski's proof*
    (1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p
    Is derived from the Liar Paradox as proven by these four pages.

    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
    https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

    This makes your claims about this aspect of my work meet
    the reckless disregard for the truth required to prove libel.
    Not at all. I _know_ that 2 + 2 = 4, that is the truth. Your attempts
    to persuade that it's really 5 won't go anywhere. If you really think
    I'm libelling you, feel free to start a court case against me. You might >>> have to learn some German first, though.
    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
    --
    Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

    "For the interlocutors of PO":
    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/T8nUP6AFWIM/m/Rrly3Y2LAQAJ

    "Undecidable decision problems are abolished":
    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/1q470MV0jwI/m/1bw5JgzsAgAJ


    "I'm grateful that Montague validates that any formal syntax has a variety of
    normal forms in natural language, and would thank Tesniere and my English
    teacher who taught us a normal form of diagramming English, a natural
    language. "

    I did not like English until my seventh grade English teacher
    converted it into math by sentence diagramming.

    Later on when I finally realized that the purpose of English
    is effective communication and not just memorizing a bunch
    of rules I started liking English.

    It is not "the" purpose, just one of the purposes. Even if you don't
    use English for other purposes, other people do, e.g., effective
    thinking, memorising various things, maintaining social relations, &c.

    Mikko

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