Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?

[Skepdick]

http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_H ... 319%29.pdf
I use the Linz version linked above because is specifies key details about state transitions.
I created a simplification of the Linz version using X86 machine code that analyses itself
in an X86 emulator.

And I don't care until it's in digital format. I can't use it/test/experiment with it - I can only read it.

[PeteOlcott]

There are some expressions of language that because of their structure cannot possibly be resolved to True or False.
These are rejected as ill-formed truth bearers.

So what?

Just because you can't resolve any Russian sentences to True or False it doesn't mean the sentences are ill-formed.

It only means you lack comprehension of the language.

You did not pay enough attention to the words that I specified.
Your example does not fit the words that I specified.

[PeteOlcott]

http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_H ... 319%29.pdf
I use the Linz version linked above because is specifies key details about state transitions.
I created a simplification of the Linz version using X86 machine code that analyses itself
in an X86 emulator.

And I don't care until it's in digital format. I can't use it/test/experiment with it - I can only read it.

I plan on making an executable available on my webserver or at least publish all of the code
so that it can be executed offline. I adapted the X86 emulator so that it executes on all platforms.

[Skepdick]

You did not pay enough attention to the words that I specified.
Your example does not fit the words that I specified.

It fits perfectly once you accept the fact that Turing Machines are language recognisers.

Your inability to parse a sentence does not mean the sentence is false.

It just means you are unable to parse it.

[PeteOlcott]

You did not pay enough attention to the words that I specified.
Your example does not fit the words that I specified.

It fits perfectly once you accept the fact that Turing Machines are language recognisers.

Your inability to parse a sentence does not mean the sentence is false.

It just means you are unable to parse it.

The utter and complete impossibility for anyone to resolve an expression of language
to exactly one of True or False because of the structure of this expression of language
indicates that this expression of language is not a truth bearer.

[Skepdick]

The utter and complete impossibility for anyone to resolve an expression of language
to exactly one of True or False because of the structure of this expression of language
indicates that this expression of language is not a truth bearer.

It's not ANYONE who can't resolve the expression, Pete.

It's just YOU who can't resolve it. Right now. Given your current level of understanding of the expression.

You don't speak the language! Once you learn the language the expression could actually turn out to be a truth-bearer!

[PeteOlcott]

The utter and complete impossibility for anyone to resolve an expression of language
to exactly one of True or False because of the structure of this expression of language
indicates that this expression of language is not a truth bearer.

It's not ANYONE who can't resolve the expression, Pete.

It's just YOU who can't resolve it. Right now. Given your current level of understanding of the expression.

"This sentence is not true." is not a truth bearer because the resolution to either True or False derives a contradiction.

The Formalized Liar Paradox says that P is materially equivalent to Not True.
The truth table shows that this is self-contradictory.

Code: Select all

P   ↔   ¬True(P)    
T   F     F         
F   F     T         

Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott

[Skepdick]

"This sentence is not true." is not a truth bearer because the resolution to either True or False derives a contradiction.

That does not hold in all models.

The truth table shows that this is self-contradictory.

How did you manufacture this truth-table? You said that the sentence is not a Truth-bearer! Therefore it's neither True nor False.

[Skepdick]

http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_H ... 319%29.pdf

So here is your error...

Proof: We assume the contrary, namely that there exists an algorithm,
and consequently some Turing machine H, that solves the halting problem.

That which solves the Halting Problem is NOT a Turing machine.
It's an Oracle Machine

[PeteOlcott]

"This sentence is not true." is not a truth bearer because the resolution to either True or False derives a contradiction.

That does not hold in all models.

The truth table shows that this is self-contradictory.

How did you manufacture this truth-table? You said that the sentence is not a Truth-bearer! Therefore it's neither True nor False.

The only reason that I know that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel is that I independently derived
all of his reasoning before reading one word that he said:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel

[PeteOlcott]

http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_H ... 319%29.pdf

So here is your error...

Proof: We assume the contrary, namely that there exists an algorithm,
and consequently some Turing machine H, that solves the halting problem.

That which solves the Halting Problem is NOT a Turing machine.
It's an Oracle Machine

All of conventional wisdom about the Halting Problem is incorrect, because all
of this conventional wisdom ignores a key detail that took me 12 years to discover.

[Skepdick]

The only reason that I know that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel is that I independently derived
all of his reasoning before reading one word that he said:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel

That stuff is 100 years history. We are past that now.

Chomsky spoke of grammars in the 50s.
The post-modernists spoke of Gramatology in the 60s.
Per Martin-Löf developped Type Theory in the 70s.
Girard developed linear logic and Geometry of Interaction in the 80s and 90s.
All of that culminated into Programming Language Theory.

And I know you know this because you keep referring to BNF notation. Which is the syntactic notation used by Linear logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic#Syntax

The language of classical linear logic (CLL) is defined inductively by the BNF notation

[nothing]

None-the-less only from the basis of how I defined a formal system can an automated process be specified to read written material to detect and report falsehoods. Such a system could flag all Fake News as lies.

Pete. I have the urge to insult you at this point, but I'll refrain. This is a dead honest question.

Do you think that the difficulty in the mechanical classification/distinction between "real news" and "fake news" boils down to a re-defining the notion of a "formal system" ? How does an English definition overcome the actual technical difficulties in implementing such a mechanism?

My architectural design of the redefinition of a formal system self-evidently does what it claims to anyone that can understand what I am saying.

Any expression of language that because of its structure cannot be resolved to exactly one of {True, false}
through a parallel set syntactic and semantic inference steps is not a truth bearer.
http://liarparadox.org/godel-1931_Finit ... _Basis.pdf

I added several paragraphs of clarification this morning.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel

I just wish to point out that Pete is correct about this:

Any expression of language that because of its structure cannot be resolved to exactly one of {True, false}
through a parallel set syntactic and semantic inference steps is not a truth bearer.

A perfect proposition will bear {True, false} as 180-degree counterposed choices.

[PeteOlcott]

The only reason that I know that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel is that I independently derived
all of his reasoning before reading one word that he said:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel

That stuff is 100 years history. We are past that now.

We are way past understanding that Wittgenstein was correct about Gödel being wrong?

[PeteOlcott]

I just wish to point out that Pete is correct about this:

Any expression of language that because of its structure cannot be resolved to exactly one of {True, false}
through a parallel set syntactic and semantic inference steps is not a truth bearer.

If Pete is interested I have a solution to the problem of "believer vs. unbeliever" (ie. human suffering) that satisfies the truth-bearer construct.
It does this by clarifying the only possible reciprocal "axes" of the universe as a corollary of {True, false} substance indiscriminate.

Thanks for your support.