| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 56:11:32 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 179,568 |
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.