| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 40:18:22 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,391 |
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
A truth predicate as defined above is only applicable to models
of the system. It does not apply to non-model interpretations.
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
On 2025-10-13 15:27:00 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
The system may be able to "derive" a consistent truth predicates
with an infinte chain of theories but that does not provide any
basis to pick one of those predicates as "correct".
The problem still remains that the language that can express the
meaning of the truth predicate is not in the domain of the predicare.
On 10/14/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-13 15:27:00 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
The system may be able to "derive" a consistent truth predicates
with an infinte chain of theories but that does not provide any
basis to pick one of those predicates as "correct".
Yes if you don't pay complete attention it may seem that way.
Go read and re-read the first paragraph a few dozens times
it took me 28 years to come up with it.
On 2025-10-14 15:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/14/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-13 15:27:00 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
The system may be able to "derive" a consistent truth predicates
with an infinte chain of theories but that does not provide any
basis to pick one of those predicates as "correct".
Yes if you don't pay complete attention it may seem that way.
Go read and re-read the first paragraph a few dozens times
it took me 28 years to come up with it.
Kripke's text can be understood in a time much less than 28 years.
In particular, Kripke is very clear about the infinite chain of
theories. Kripke is also clear and right about Tarski's result.
On 10/15/2025 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-14 15:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/14/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-13 15:27:00 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
The system may be able to "derive" a consistent truth predicates
with an infinte chain of theories but that does not provide any
basis to pick one of those predicates as "correct".
Yes if you don't pay complete attention it may seem that way.
Go read and re-read the first paragraph a few dozens times
it took me 28 years to come up with it.
Its been 21 years since I looked at it.
I was going by the AI analysis of how he conquered
the Liar Paradox.
Kripke's text can be understood in a time much less than 28 years.
In particular, Kripke is very clear about the infinite chain of
theories. Kripke is also clear and right about Tarski's result.
If he said this he was wrong.
There is only a finite number of levels of logic to encode all
human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
On 2025-10-15 23:29:44 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/15/2025 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-14 15:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/14/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-13 15:27:00 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
The system may be able to "derive" a consistent truth predicates
with an infinte chain of theories but that does not provide any
basis to pick one of those predicates as "correct".
Yes if you don't pay complete attention it may seem that way.
Go read and re-read the first paragraph a few dozens times
it took me 28 years to come up with it.
Its been 21 years since I looked at it.
I was going by the AI analysis of how he conquered
the Liar Paradox.
Kripke's text can be understood in a time much less than 28 years.
In particular, Kripke is very clear about the infinite chain of
theories. Kripke is also clear and right about Tarski's result.
If he said this he was wrong.
If you don't want to mention Kripke anymore that's OK.
There is only a finite number of levels of logic to encode all
human knowledge that can be expressed in language.
A truth predicate that would cover all those levels cannot be expressed
in the language of any of those levels.
On 2025-10-14 15:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/14/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-13 15:27:00 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/13/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-12 14:56:17 +0000, olcott said:
Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent
system of stipulated truths and only applies the truth
preserving operation of semantic logical entailment to
this finite set of basic facts inherently derives a
truth predicate that works consistently and correctly
for this entire body of knowledge that can be expressed
in language.
If the system is not complete it does not define a truth
predicate. Even if it does the truth predicate cannot be
expressed in the language of the system.
There is no theoretical reason why the above system
architecture cannot derive a consistent and correct
truth predicate for every element of the body of
knowledge that can be expressed in language.
The system may be able to "derive" a consistent truth predicates
with an infinte chain of theories but that does not provide any
basis to pick one of those predicates as "correct".
Yes if you don't pay complete attention it may seem that way.
Go read and re-read the first paragraph a few dozens times
it took me 28 years to come up with it.
Kripke's text can be understood in a time much less than 28 years.
In particular, Kripke is very clear about the infinite chain of
theories. Kripke is also clear and right about Tarski's result.