PL Olcott

If there is no possible way to know that expression X is true then we can't possibly know that expression X is true. AKA when X lacks a truth-maker th...

We must start with the common lack of sufficient precision of your first statement. Most everyone makes tis same mistake. There cannot possibly be any...

Then is never really was literally unprovable. True yet cannot possibly be proved in any way what-so-ever does not allow indirect proof. A sequence of...

When I provide a simple yes/no answer all that I get is ad hominem attacks without anyone even looking at what I said. So I encode my yes/no answer in...

I just told you what I want to talk about so we can skip all of the other posts I simplified what I want to talk about so that it will be easier for y...

It is not my fault that people want to change the subject away from the original post. I have found that allowing people to do this to play Trollish h...

Can you manage to stay focused on the point at hand? Every expression of language x that is {true on the basis of its meaning} can only be verified as...

Can you manage to stay focused on the point at hand? Every expression of language x that is {true on the basis of its meaning} can only be verified as...

I am establishing a brand new foundation for analytical truth and simply ignoring that I am doing this is no actual rebuttal at all.

In other words you believe that there are are sequence of truth preserving operations from the axioms of PA to G or to ~G. When I prove my point ALL Y...

That part is correct yet simply ignores the actual point Therefore: True(PA, G) == false True(PA, ~G) == false.

All you have is ad hominem and cannot point out any actual errors in the essence of my reasoning. Here is the essence of my reasoning: Every expressio...

To understand what I am saying requires knowledge of truth-maker maximalism that you seem to lack.

I didn't even say that G was false. According to the new foundation of True(L, x) that I provided in my original post when neither G nor ~G can be pro...

I went back to my original post and still stand firmly behind it. The terms that I use are relevent to truth-maker maximalism yet probably establish b...

You have proven to be overwhelmed by the detail of the original thread so I simplified it. I didn't dumb it down you are very smart. I simplified it s...

What is there about the semantic meaning of {cats are not cats} that shows that {the Moon is made of green cheese} ???

Yet when we make sure to NOT IGNORE the semantics underlying the sentential logic that said is correct then we understand that there is no semantic co...

OK we finally have agreement on one point and I am exhausted that it took this long. I am not going to bother to extend beyond this point with you bec...

Maybe you are overwhelmed by too many details. The Principle of Explosion claims this: (A & ~A) proves B

(A & ~A) proves B is the POE (A & ~A) proves FALSE is the actual correct inference Two aspects of the same case.

Yet when D is a contradiction we know that D is not true.

That seems to not be restrictive enough. From your idea Donald Trump is Christ is entailed by the Moon is made from green cheese because the Moon is m...

I am talking about how the categorical propositions of the syllogism directly encode semantics thousands of years before anyone every heard of model t...

That most philosophers were convinced by Quine that the analytic/synthetic distinction does not exist, thus it is impossible to divide expressions {tr...

The POE says the everything is logically entailed by a contradiction and it is simply wrong about this. A & ~ A proves FALSE and nothing more.

In other words you disagree with the Wikipedia quote. I disagree with the Principle of Explosion itself. There are no semantics passed from any contra...

Disagrees with this:

I do know the distinction between valid and true. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ So see how you can use this distinction to explain how what you said di...

Let just talk about the POE. (A & ~A) prove B no matter what A and B are. (1) We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be t...

In other words you did not understand that I just provided the essence of the foundation of expressions that are {true on the basis of their meaning} ...

It took me twenty years to unequivocally prove that something just like the analytic side of the analytic synthetic distinction really exists. Most ph...

I am talking about semantic entailment that has nothing to do with model theory. The reason the error of the Principle of Explosion has slipped throug...

It has taken me twenty years to derive the architectural overview that I just provided. A key aspect of this is defining expressions that are {true on...

I am NOT doing it that way. The meanings of terms are specified in a knowledge ontology type hierarchy. The compositional meaning of expressions is de...

One expression of formal language or formalized natural P or ~P can either be connected to a set of semantic meanings specified as formal language or ...

When any expression P or ~P has no connection through truth preserving operations to elements of the set of expressions of specified semantic meanings...

That may make conventional sense. In my system semantic meaning is fully integrated directly into the language. This makes things such as the principl...

I already specified that the R I am referring to is the set of semantic meanings specified as expressions of language. This is the key foundation of m...

You simply ignored most of what I said. I didn't read beyond the point where you proved that you ignored my definition of R. (expressions of language ...

Three laws of logic apply to all propositions ¬(p ? ¬p) Law of non-contradiction (p ? ¬p) Law of excluded middle p = p Law of identity Because of Quin...

The sentence <IS> derived from his Liar Paradox and has the same sort of paradoxical result. I am taking your last post as an indication that you are ...

"This sentence is not provable" is not provable because that would require a sequence of inference steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.

Only when you fail to understand that True(L,x) requires a sequence of truth preserving operations from basic facts that are other expressions of lang...

You are not paying close enough attention x ? True if and only if p x {is not a member of} True x ? True if and only if p x {is a member of} True

The formalized liar Paradox is adapted to become line 1 of the proof.

You must carefully study pages 247, 248, 275, and 276. I have spent hundreds of hours on those four pages over the last several years. From this basis...

In other words he does not understand that the derived liar sentence must be rejected as a non-truth-bearer thus a type mismatch error for any formal ...

has this as its original source: Which is the paper that I have been citing. Let's FULLY address this one single point before we attempt to address an...

I am not a very good communicator, maybe this is more clear Tarski's Liar Paradox from page 248 It would then be possible to reconstruct the antinomy ...