Not at all. I use truth conditional semantics to map the infinite set of finite stringsSkepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:23 pmHow can I tell you that you are correct when i am trying to get it through your thick skull that you are wrong!PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:20 pm I have proved that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string: "bachelor" can have its semantic meaning defined in terms of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings without requiring the cycles that this summation of Quine suggested would be required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

Instead of acknowledging that I am correct you always seem to nitpick at one extraneous point or another.

All you are saying is that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "True" can simply be defined by the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "False". So instead of having one meaningless string , now you have two meaningless strings. But why stop there? If you can have two meaningless strings, why not infinitely many?

Congratulations. You have re-invented meaningless.

representing the subset of the body of analytical knowledge to the finite string: "true",

thus assigning truth conditional semantics to these finite strings.