Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:49 pm Humans simply learned the conventions language required to encode
the relations between ideas within the correct abstract model of the world.
Congratulations. You've re-discovered relational algebra/SQL databases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

In such a system Tarski Undedefinability and Gödel 1931 Incompleteness cannot possibly exist. If an expression x of language L is not stipulated as true or deduced from these expressions then it is simply untrue in L, otherwise it is True(L,x).
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 11:31 pm In such a system Tarski Undedefinability and Gödel 1931 Incompleteness cannot possibly exist. If an expression x of language L is not stipulated as true or deduced from these expressions then it is simply untrue in L, otherwise it is True(L,x).
That's not true.

An SQL query could return 0 results. Which means that the query/expression is False; or an uninhabited type.
An SQL query could return >0 results. Which means that the query/expression is True; or an inhabited type.

An SQL query could run indefinitely and fail to produce a result (which is NOT the same as returning 0 results). Because SQL is Turing complete and not guaranteed to terminate.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:49 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:15 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 4:19 am

I am starting to believe that it is possible that you are only playing head games.
In this case the subject matter is so difficult that it is much more likely that you
simply don't understand that I already answered your question.

If you can answer the question:
How do you know that you left foot is not your right hand?
Then by whatever process you determined that is the same way
that we know that horses are not ten story office buildings.
OKAY.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, what IS that 'process', EXACTLY?

WORK that OUT, THEN we CAN PROCEED.
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 4:19 am If you are just playing head games you will find some way to dodge
my question, otherwise you will be able to answer your own question.
I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.

We are just WAITING, PATIENTLY, to SEE IF you WILL arrive at the SAME ANSWER.
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 4:19 am A good Troll answer would be:
"I have no idea that my left foot is not my right hand".
Okay.

If this is what you think or BELIEVE, then so be it.
Humans simply learned the conventions language required to encode
the relations between ideas within the correct abstract model of the world.

A system anchored in these encoded relations and semantic deductions that
can be made from them overcomes The Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

Thus provides the basis for a universal Truth predicate True(L,x).
So what?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:49 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:15 am

OKAY.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, what IS that 'process', EXACTLY?

WORK that OUT, THEN we CAN PROCEED.


I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.

We are just WAITING, PATIENTLY, to SEE IF you WILL arrive at the SAME ANSWER.


Okay.

If this is what you think or BELIEVE, then so be it.
Humans simply learned the conventions language required to encode
the relations between ideas within the correct abstract model of the world.

A system anchored in these encoded relations and semantic deductions that
can be made from them overcomes The Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

Thus provides the basis for a universal Truth predicate True(L,x).
So what?
So we can make a Chatbot that unceasingly argues against each and everyone of these people on social media every which way thus quelling counter-factual disinformation before it ever gets started.

No one will ever make any attempt to do this while they believe that the Tarski undefinability theorem is true.

I have already shown how prolog screens out the Liar Paradox, and since the Tarski undefinability theorem has only the Liar Paradox as its basis his whole theorem utterly ceases to prove its point.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
In my system (having the same architecture as the Prolog inference model) the truth of expressions of language is derived from Facts and/or deduced from Facts based on Rules. The Liar Paradox (in this system) is simply untrue. Such a system cannot be incomplete in the Gödel sense because Unprovable(L,x) simply means Untrue(L,x).
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm
Age wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:49 pm

Humans simply learned the conventions language required to encode
the relations between ideas within the correct abstract model of the world.

A system anchored in these encoded relations and semantic deductions that
can be made from them overcomes The Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

Thus provides the basis for a universal Truth predicate True(L,x).
So what?
So we can make a Chatbot that unceasingly argues against each and everyone of these people on social media every which way thus quelling counter-factual disinformation before it ever gets started.

No one will ever make any attempt to do this while they believe that the Tarski undefinability theorem is true.

I have already shown how prolog screens out the Liar Paradox, and since the Tarski undefinability theorem has only the Liar Paradox as its basis his whole theorem utterly ceases to prove its point.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
In my system (having the same architecture as the Prolog inference model) the truth of expressions of language is derived from Facts and/or deduced from Facts based on Rules. The Liar Paradox (in this system) is simply untrue. Such a system cannot be incomplete in the Gödel sense because Unprovable(L,x) simply means Untrue(L,x).
But Prolog a not a total language. Thus all prolog expressions require (at least!) a tri-valued logic.

A Boolean to represent true/false + some way to represent non-halting behaviour
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Detects infinite expressions where the evaluation would never terminate.

The Boolean value of self-contradictory expressions of language is the same as the Boolean value of every expression that is not a truth bearer: {Not Boolean}. That other formal systems simply ignore this is divergence from reality.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 3:49 pm ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Detects infinite expressions where the evaluation would never terminate.

The Boolean value of self-contradictory expressions of language is the same as the Boolean value of every expression that is not a truth bearer: {Not Boolean}. That other formal systems simply ignore this is divergence from reality.
So what does a {Not Boolean} function return since it doesn't return either true or false?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

In Prolog and the architecture of the formal system that I am proposing expressions are only true if they can be deduced from expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true. Neither the formalized Liar Paradox nor its negation can be deduced this way, thus both are untrue.

This is the proper way to handle self-contradictory expressions of language. Blaming the formal system for making some sort of (incompleteness) mistake is the incorrect way to handle this.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:45 pm In Prolog and the architecture of the formal system that I am proposing expressions are only true if they can be deduced from expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true. Neither the formalized Liar Paradox nor its negation can be deduced this way, thus both are untrue.

This is the proper way to handle self-contradictory expressions of language. Blaming the formal system for making some sort of (incompleteness) mistake is the incorrect way to handle this.
If you can’t construct non-halting expressions then your language is NOT Turing complete.

Prolog is Turing complete.

You are confused. For 20 years and counting.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Prolog correctly detects the pathological self-reference error thus
rejects the Liar Paradox (and every other expression with the same error)
as erroneous. This by itself totally nullifies Tarski's undefinability Theorem
that utterly depends on the Liar Paradox expression.

But the diagonal lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence,
by giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(S)) holds in N.
This is a contradiction. QED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm
Age wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:49 pm

Humans simply learned the conventions language required to encode
the relations between ideas within the correct abstract model of the world.

A system anchored in these encoded relations and semantic deductions that
can be made from them overcomes The Tarski Undefinability Theorem.

Thus provides the basis for a universal Truth predicate True(L,x).
So what?
So we can make a Chatbot that unceasingly argues against each and everyone of these people on social media every which way thus quelling counter-factual disinformation before it ever gets started.
But Who is going to program WHICH WAY the chat it is going to LOOK AT and VIEW 'things'?

you keep appearing to completely MISS or MISUNDERSTAND the ACTUAL ISSUE here
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm No one will ever make any attempt to do this while they believe that the Tarski undefinability theorem is true.
False.
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm I have already shown how prolog screens out the Liar Paradox, and since the Tarski undefinability theorem has only the Liar Paradox as its basis his whole theorem utterly ceases to prove its point.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
WHEN, and IF, you EVER PROVIDE ANY so-called 'real life' examples here, then I WILL SHOW and PROVE HOW and WHY what you want to design and achieve here will NEVER WORK.
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 2:14 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
In my system (having the same architecture as the Prolog inference model) the truth of expressions of language is derived from Facts and/or deduced from Facts based on Rules. The Liar Paradox (in this system) is simply untrue. Such a system cannot be incomplete in the Gödel sense because Unprovable(L,x) simply means Untrue(L,x).
Although 'godel's theorem', the 'liars paradox', and 'tarski's undefinability' are all False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, and/or incomplete in and of themselves, it is NOT 'these things' that is STOPPING you from achieving what you want here.

What IS ACTUALLY STOPPING you is the Fact that 'it' IS an IMPOSSIBLE goal.

you are just SAYING and USING 'these things' to 'TRY TO' BLAME for NIT YET achieving what you want here.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Age »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:45 pm In Prolog and the architecture of the formal system that I am proposing expressions are only true if they can be deduced from expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.
But WHO IS the ONE who gets to STIPULATE what IS TRUE FROM what IS NOT TRUE?

For example, can ANY one 'put their hand up' for that job?
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:45 pm Neither the formalized Liar Paradox nor its negation can be deduced this way, thus both are untrue.

This is the proper way to handle self-contradictory expressions of language. Blaming the formal system for making some sort of (incompleteness) mistake is the incorrect way to handle this.
Last edited by Age on Mon May 29, 2023 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:28 pm Prolog correctly detects the pathological self-reference error thus
rejects the Liar Paradox (and every other expression with the same error)
as erroneous. This by itself totally nullifies Tarski's undefinability Theorem
that utterly depends on the Liar Paradox expression.

But the diagonal lemma yields a counterexample to this equivalence,
by giving a "liar" formula S such that S ⟺ ¬True(g(S)) holds in N.
This is a contradiction. QED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
Olcott, you are a fucking idiot.

In all this fucking time you still haven't figured out that one of the things valid formal systems DO is preserve semantic properties under transformations. Whatever those properties may be.

So if your formal system encodes the semantic property of "pathological" self-reference, and this semantic property is distinct from NON-pathological self-reference then it's on you to present the decision procedure which sorts the pathological from the non-pathological self-references. It's also on you to show that this property is preserved under all transformations! e.g a non-pathological self-rerefence isn't turned into a pathological one; and that a pathological self-reference isn't turned into a non-pathological one. This would violate the validity of your system.

So where is the source code for the decider which, when given ANY self-referential expression returns a Boolean such that Boolean:True represents the fact that the expression is pathological; and Boolean:False representing the fact that the expression is NOT pathological?

Will you ever internalise the implication of Rice's theorem? All non-trivial semantic properties of formal systems are undecidable!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's_theorem
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?

Post by PeteOlcott »

Age wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:16 am
PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 4:45 pm In Prolog and the architecture of the formal system that I am proposing expressions are only true if they can be deduced from expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.
But WHO IS the ONE who gets to STIPULATE what IS TRUE FROM what IS NOT TRUE?

For example, can ANY one 'put their hand up' for that job?
The computer does it itself.
Post Reply