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 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:32 pm 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.
Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
You did not pay enough attention to the words that I specified.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:46 pmSo what?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:28 pm 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.
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.
Your example does not fit the words that I specified.
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
I plan on making an executable available on my webserver or at least publish all of the codeSkepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:48 pmAnd 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 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:32 pm 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.
so that it can be executed offline. I adapted the X86 emulator so that it executes on all platforms.
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
It fits perfectly once you accept the fact that Turing Machines are language recognisers.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:53 pm You did not pay enough attention to the words that I specified.
Your example does not fit the words that I specified.
Your inability to parse a sentence does not mean the sentence is false.
It just means you are unable to parse it.
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
The utter and complete impossibility for anyone to resolve an expression of languageSkepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:56 pmIt fits perfectly once you accept the fact that Turing Machines are language recognisers.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:53 pm You did not pay enough attention to the words that I specified.
Your example does not fit the words that I specified.
Your inability to parse a sentence does not mean the sentence is false.
It just means you are unable to parse it.
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.
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
It's not ANYONE who can't resolve the expression, Pete.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:59 pm 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 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!
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
"This sentence is not true." is not a truth bearer because the resolution to either True or False derives a contradiction.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:03 pmIt's not ANYONE who can't resolve the expression, Pete.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:59 pm 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 just YOU who can't resolve it. Right now. Given your current level of understanding of the expression.
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
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
That does not hold in all models.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm "This sentence is not true." is not a truth bearer because the resolution to either True or False derives a contradiction.
How did you manufacture this truth-table? You said that the sentence is not a Truth-bearer! Therefore it's neither True nor False.
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
So here is your error...
That which solves the Halting Problem is NOT a Turing machine.Proof: We assume the contrary, namely that there exists an algorithm,
and consequently some Turing machine H, that solves the halting problem.
It's an Oracle Machine
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
The only reason that I know that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel is that I independently derivedSkepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:24 pmThat does not hold in all models.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:19 pm "This sentence is not true." is not a truth bearer because the resolution to either True or False derives a contradiction.
How did you manufacture this truth-table? You said that the sentence is not a Truth-bearer! Therefore it's neither True nor False.
all of his reasoning before reading one word that he said:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... bout_Godel
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
All of conventional wisdom about the Halting Problem is incorrect, because allSkepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:37 pmSo here is your error...
That which solves the Halting Problem is NOT a Turing machine.Proof: We assume the contrary, namely that there exists an algorithm,
and consequently some Turing machine H, that solves the halting problem.
It's an Oracle Machine
of this conventional wisdom ignores a key detail that took me 12 years to discover.
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
That stuff is 100 years history. We are past that now.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:41 pm 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
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
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
I just wish to point out that Pete is correct about this:PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:12 pmMy architectural design of the redefinition of a formal system self-evidently does what it claims to anyone that can understand what I am saying.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:50 pmPete. I have the urge to insult you at this point, but I'll refrain. This is a dead honest question.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:13 pm 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.
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?
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
A perfect proposition will bear {True, false} as 180-degree counterposed choices.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.
Last edited by nothing on Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
We are way past understanding that Wittgenstein was correct about Gödel being wrong?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:51 pmThat stuff is 100 years history. We are past that now.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:41 pm 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
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Is this an improved definition of a truth bearer?
nothing wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:52 pm
I just wish to point out that Pete is correct about this:
If Pete is interested I have a solution to the problem of "believer vs. unbeliever" (ie. human suffering) that satisfies the truth-bearer construct.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.
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.