On 4/28/23 12:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/23 11:21 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>>>>>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement
>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you honestly believe that an honest mistake is a lie.
>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU STUPID !!!  (yet not a liar)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you ADMIT that you ideas are a "Mistake"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, to the best of my knowledge I have correctly proved all of my
>>> assertions are semantic tautologies thus necessarily true.
>>>
>>> The fact that few besides me understand that they are semantic
>>> tautologies is not actual rebuttal at all.
>>
>> No, but the fact that you can't rebute the claims against your
>> arguments, and really haven't tried, implies that you know that your
>> claims are baseless.
>>
>>
>> IF your counter to the fact that you have made clearly factually
>> incorrect statements is that "Honest Mistakes" are not lies, just
>> shows what you consider your grounds to defined yourself.
>>
>>>
>>>> You ADMIT that your statements are untrue because you ideas, while
>>>> sincerly held by you, are admitted to be WRONG?
>>>>
>>>> Note, these definition point to statements which are made that are
>>>> clearly false can be considered as lies on their face value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can call you a liar on the basis that when you sleep at night you
>>> probably lie down. This is not what is meant by liar.
>>
>> So, you admit you don't understand the defintion of liar?
>>
>>>
>>>> Note also, I tend to use the term "Pathological liar", which implies
>>>> this sort error, the speaker, due to mental deficiencies have lost
>>>> the ability to actual know what is true or false. This seems to
>>>> describe you to the T.
>>>>
>>>> I also use the term "Ignorant Liar" which means you lie out of a
>>>> lack of knowledge of the truth.
>>>
>>> I am not a liar in any sense of the common accepted definition of
>>> liar that requires that four conditions be met.
>>
>> But are by MY definition that I posted, one who makes false or
>> misleading statments.
>>
>>>
>>> there are at least four necessary conditions for lying:
>>>
>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>> condition).
>>>
>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
>>> false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
>>> (untruthfulness condition).
>>>
>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another
>>> person (addressee condition).
>>>
>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person
>>> believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the
>>> addressee condition).
>>>
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>
>>> That you continue to call me a "liar" while failing to disclose that you
>>> are are not referring to what everyone else means by the term meets the
>>> legal definition of "actual malice"
>>>
>>> https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/889/actual-malice
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't think that definition 3 or 5 of the reference you made,
>> that did NOT require knowledge of the error by the person.
>>
>
> The SEP article references the four required conditions for
> "The most widely accepted definition of lying"

But not the ONLY.

Ergo, not definitive.

Note also, I call you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, and just as you want to make
a "sematic tautology" something different than a actual "Tautology", a
"Pathological Liar", and an "Ignorant Liar" have slightly different
meanings that just a "plain" liar.

It seems you are mentally incapable of understanding what actual truth
is, but can only regurgitate (never actually learned) rote statements
that seem to support you positions.

You are sick in your head.

>
> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A lie is
> a statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention that
> someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf.
> “[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the intention
> of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This
> definition does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated
> as follows:
>
> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person
> with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.
>
> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at
> least four necessary conditions for lying.
>

Again, your defense is just showing that you are admitting to being a
pathological liar, because you don't understand the clear falsehood of
your statement.

My guess is that if you made your claims in front of a mental
compentency hearing, you could be held for being mentally incompentent.

The key point of this claim is that you still assert that even though
you accept the definition of a Halt Decider to be per Linz, that the
decider H(M,w) is supposed to decide on the behavior of M(w), you claim
that H(D,D) is correct to say non-halting even though D(D) Halts.

Thus you deny the very definition you accepted.

This shows extream cognitive dissonance.

On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and I
>>>>>>>> won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement
>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The
>>>>> dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement with
>>>>> the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous
>>>>> problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it
>>>>> requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
>>>>> something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone who
>>>>> is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A
>>>>> lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the
>>>>> intention that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg
>>>>> 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be
>>>>> false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true”
>>>>> (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the
>>>>> addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there
>>>>> are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>> condition).
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
>>>>> false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
>>>>> (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>
>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>
>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to
>>>>> deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept truth
>>>> differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming that you
>>>> can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify that
>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>
>>
>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>
>
> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>
> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
> true in all possible worlds.
>
>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number of
>>>> times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a suitable
>>>> stand in for your own belief.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only proves
>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>
>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but then
>> try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding that you
>> are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows that you don't
>> understand how logic actually works.
>>
>
> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
> aspects that I refer to.
>
> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
> terminology.
>
>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>> results that you can not prove.
>>
>
> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am saying.
> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
> rebuttal at all.
>
>>>
>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>> incapable.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of insanity,
>>>> make that plea, but that just becomes an admission that you are a
>>>> pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>
>>
>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you that
>> you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been proven
>> incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>
>
> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a semantic
> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
> tautology.

Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".

The COMMON definition is "the saying of the same thing twice in
different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they
arrived one after the other in succession)".

The Meaning in the fielc of Logic is "In mathematical logic, a tautology
(from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every
possible interpretation."

So, neither of them point to the meaning of the words.

If you are just making up words, you are admitting you have lost from
the start.

The problem is that word meanings, especially for "natural" language are
to ill defined to be used to form the basis of formal logic. You need to
work with FORMAL definitions, which become part of the Truth Makers of
the system. At that point, either you semantic tautologies are real
tautologies because they are alway true in every model, or they are not
tautologies.

On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and
>>>>>>>>> I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement
>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement
>>>>>> with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous
>>>>>> problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it
>>>>>> requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
>>>>>> something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone
>>>>>> who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A
>>>>>> lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the
>>>>>> intention that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg
>>>>>> 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be
>>>>>> false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true”
>>>>>> (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the
>>>>>> addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there
>>>>>> are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be
>>>>>> false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful
>>>>>> (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to
>>>>>> deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify that
>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>
>>
>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>> true in all possible worlds.
>>
>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number of
>>>>> times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a suitable
>>>>> stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>> proves
>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>
>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but then
>>> try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding that
>>> you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows that you
>>> don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>
>>
>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>> aspects that I refer to.
>>
>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>> terminology.
>>
>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>
>>
>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am saying.
>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>> rebuttal at all.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of insanity,
>>>>> make that plea, but that just becomes an admission that you are a
>>>>> pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you that
>>> you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been proven
>>> incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>
>>
>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a semantic
>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>> tautology.
>
> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>

In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20a%20formula%20is,are%20known%20formally%20as%20contradictions.

On 4/28/23 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies, and
>>>>>>>>>> I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the statement
>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement
>>>>>>> with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous
>>>>>>> problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it
>>>>>>> requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
>>>>>>> something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone
>>>>>>> who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A
>>>>>>> lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the
>>>>>>> intention that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg
>>>>>>> 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be
>>>>>>> false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as
>>>>>>> true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify
>>>>>>> the addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there
>>>>>>> are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to
>>>>>>> be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be
>>>>>>> untruthful (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to
>>>>>>> deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify that
>>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>
>>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>>> true in all possible worlds.
>>>
>>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number
>>>>>> of times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a
>>>>>> suitable stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>>> proves
>>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but then
>>>> try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding that
>>>> you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows that you
>>>> don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>>> aspects that I refer to.
>>>
>>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>>> terminology.
>>>
>>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am saying.
>>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>>> rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of
>>>>>> insanity, make that plea, but that just becomes an admission that
>>>>>> you are a pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
>>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you
>>>> that you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been
>>>> proven incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a semantic
>>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>>> tautology.
>>
>> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>>
>
> In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
> interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
> unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.

On 4/28/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies,
>>>>>>>>>>> and I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the
>>>>>>>>>>> statement is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement
>>>>>>>> with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous
>>>>>>>> problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it
>>>>>>>> requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
>>>>>>>> something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone
>>>>>>>> who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following:
>>>>>>>> “A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with
>>>>>>>> the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it”
>>>>>>>> (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement
>>>>>>>> believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to
>>>>>>>> accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does
>>>>>>>> not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1,
>>>>>>>> there are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to
>>>>>>>> be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be
>>>>>>>> untruthful (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to
>>>>>>>> deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>>>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>>>> true in all possible worlds.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number
>>>>>>> of times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a
>>>>>>> suitable stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>>>> proves
>>>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but then
>>>>> try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding that
>>>>> you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows that you
>>>>> don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>>>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>>>> aspects that I refer to.
>>>>
>>>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>>>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>>>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>>>> terminology.
>>>>
>>>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am
>>>> saying.
>>>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>>>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>>>> rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of
>>>>>>> insanity, make that plea, but that just becomes an admission that
>>>>>>> you are a pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
>>>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you
>>>>> that you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been
>>>>> proven incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a semantic
>>>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>>>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>>>> tautology.
>>>
>>> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>>>
>>
>> In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
>> interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
>> unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.
>
> Right, but that means using the rules of the field, so only definition
> of that field.
>

On 4/29/23 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false
>>>>>>>>> statement with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there
>>>>>>>>> are numerous problems with this definition. It is both too
>>>>>>>>> narrow, since it requires falsity, and too broad, since it
>>>>>>>>> allows for lying about something other than what is being
>>>>>>>>> stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening in
>>>>>>>>> but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following:
>>>>>>>>> “A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with
>>>>>>>>> the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it”
>>>>>>>>> (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement
>>>>>>>>> believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to
>>>>>>>>> accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition
>>>>>>>>> does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as
>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1,
>>>>>>>>> there are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to
>>>>>>>>> be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be
>>>>>>>>> untruthful (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention
>>>>>>>>> to deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>>>>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>>>>> true in all possible worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number
>>>>>>>> of times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a
>>>>>>>> suitable stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but
>>>>>> then try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding
>>>>>> that you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows
>>>>>> that you don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>>>>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>>>>> aspects that I refer to.
>>>>>
>>>>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>>>>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>>>>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>>>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am
>>>>> saying.
>>>>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>>>>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>>>>> rebuttal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of
>>>>>>>> insanity, make that plea, but that just becomes an admission
>>>>>>>> that you are a pathological liar, a liar because of a mental
>>>>>>>> illness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an
>>>>>>> intention to
>>>>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you
>>>>>> that you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been
>>>>>> proven incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a
>>>>> semantic
>>>>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>>>>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>>>>> tautology.
>>>>
>>>> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>>>>
>>>
>>> In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
>>> interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
>>> unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.
>>
>> Right, but that means using the rules of the field, so only definition
>> of that field.
>>
>
> I could augment this field yet this might not be required for
> mathematical expressions. It might be the case that ordinary model
> theory will work just fine.

On 4/28/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/23 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies,
>>>>>>>>>>> and I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the
>>>>>>>>>>> statement is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement
>>>>>>>> with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous
>>>>>>>> problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it
>>>>>>>> requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about
>>>>>>>> something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone
>>>>>>>> who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following:
>>>>>>>> “A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with
>>>>>>>> the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it”
>>>>>>>> (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement
>>>>>>>> believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to
>>>>>>>> accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does
>>>>>>>> not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1,
>>>>>>>> there are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to
>>>>>>>> be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be
>>>>>>>> untruthful (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to
>>>>>>>> deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>>>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>>>> true in all possible worlds.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number
>>>>>>> of times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a
>>>>>>> suitable stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>>>> proves
>>>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but then
>>>>> try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding that
>>>>> you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows that you
>>>>> don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>>>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>>>> aspects that I refer to.
>>>>
>>>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>>>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>>>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>>>> terminology.
>>>>
>>>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am
>>>> saying.
>>>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>>>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>>>> rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of
>>>>>>> insanity, make that plea, but that just becomes an admission that
>>>>>>> you are a pathological liar, a liar because of a mental illness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an intention to
>>>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you
>>>>> that you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been
>>>>> proven incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a semantic
>>>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>>>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>>>> tautology.
>>>
>>> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>>>
>>
>> In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
>> interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
>> unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.
>
> Right, but that means using the rules of the field, so only definition
> of that field.
>
> Thus, your "Meaning of the Words" needs to quote ONLY actual definitions
> that have been accepted in the field.
>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20a%20formula%20is,are%20known%20formally%20as%20contradictions.
>>
>> What I actually mean is analytic truth, yet math people will have no
>> clue about this because all of math is syntactic rather than semantic.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>
> I thought you previously were claiming that all of mathematics had to be
> analytic!
>

On 5/1/23 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/23 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2023 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2023 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/23 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2023 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>    When I went to school, history books were full of lies,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and I won't   teach lies to kids.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 to express what is false; convey a false impression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not ALWAYS require actual knowledge that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it does and you are stupid for saying otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then why do the definition I quoted say otherwise?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That just shows you are the one that is stupid, and a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In this case you are proving to be stupid: (yet not a liar)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Traditional Definition of Lying
>>>>>>>>> There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others.
>>>>>>>>> The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false
>>>>>>>>> statement with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there
>>>>>>>>> are numerous problems with this definition. It is both too
>>>>>>>>> narrow, since it requires falsity, and too broad, since it
>>>>>>>>> allows for lying about something other than what is being
>>>>>>>>> stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening in
>>>>>>>>> but who is not being addressed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following:
>>>>>>>>> “A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with
>>>>>>>>> the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it”
>>>>>>>>> (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement
>>>>>>>>> believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to
>>>>>>>>> accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition
>>>>>>>>> does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as
>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another
>>>>>>>>> person with the intention that the other person believe that
>>>>>>>>> statement to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1,
>>>>>>>>> there are at least four necessary conditions for lying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement
>>>>>>>>> condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to
>>>>>>>>> be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be
>>>>>>>>> untruthful (untruthfulness condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to
>>>>>>>>> another person (addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other
>>>>>>>>> person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention
>>>>>>>>> to deceive the addressee condition).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#TraDefLyi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are trying to use arguments to justify that you can say
>>>>>>>> "false statements" and not be considered a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that you seem to have KNOWN that the generally accept
>>>>>>>> truth differed from your ideas does not excuse you from claiming
>>>>>>>> that you can say them as FACT, and not be a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say that an idea is a fact I mean that it is a semantic
>>>>>>> tautology. That you don't understand things well enough to verify
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it is a semantic tautology does not even make my assertion false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit that you don't know that actually meaning of a FACT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean rue in the absolute sense of the word true such as:
>>>>> 2 + 3 = 5 is verified as necessarily true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Semantic tautologies are the only kind of facts that are necessarily
>>>>> true in all possible worlds.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that your error has been pointed out an enormous number
>>>>>>>> of times, makes you blatant disregard for the actual truth, a
>>>>>>>> suitable stand in for your own belief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That fact that no one has understood my semantic tautologies only
>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>> that no one has understood my semantic tautologies. It does not even
>>>>>>> prove that my assertion is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the fact that you ACCEPT most existing logic is valid, but
>>>>>> then try to change the rules at the far end, without understanding
>>>>>> that you are accepting things your logic likely rejects, shows
>>>>>> that you don't understand how logic actually works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That I do not have a complete grasp of every nuance of mathematical
>>>>> logic does not show that I do not have a sufficient grasp of those
>>>>> aspects that I refer to.
>>>>>
>>>>> My next goal is to attain a complete understanding of all of the basic
>>>>> terminology of model theory. I had a key insight about model theory
>>>>> sometime in the last month that indicates that I must master its basic
>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You present "semantic tautologies" based on FALSE definition and
>>>>>> results that you can not prove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way from the POV of not understanding what I am
>>>>> saying.
>>>>> The entire body of analytical truth is a set of semantic tautologies.
>>>>> That you are unfamiliar with the meaning of these terms is no actual
>>>>> rebuttal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you don't understand from all instruction you have been given
>>>>>>>> that you are wrong, you are just proved to be totally mentally
>>>>>>>> incapable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to claim that you are not a liar by reason of
>>>>>>>> insanity, make that plea, but that just becomes an admission
>>>>>>>> that you are a pathological liar, a liar because of a mental
>>>>>>>> illness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you continue to believe that lies do not require an
>>>>>>> intention to
>>>>>>> deceive after the above has been pointed out makes you willfully
>>>>>>> ignorant, yet still not a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, by the definiton I use, since it has been made clear to you
>>>>>> that you are wrong, but you continue to spout words that have been
>>>>>> proven incorrect make YOU a pathological liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No it only proves that you continue to have no grasp of what a
>>>>> semantic
>>>>> tautology could possibly be. Any expression that is verified as
>>>>> necessarily true entirely on the basis of its meaning is a semantic
>>>>> tautology.
>>>>
>>>> Except that isn't the meaning of a "Tautology".
>>>>
>>>
>>> In logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one
>>> interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is
>>> unsatisfiable. In other words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.
>>
>> Right, but that means using the rules of the field, so only definition
>> of that field.
>>
>> Thus, your "Meaning of the Words" needs to quote ONLY actual
>> definitions that have been accepted in the field.
>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)#:~:text=In%20logic%2C%20a%20formula%20is,are%20known%20formally%20as%20contradictions.
>>>
>>> What I actually mean is analytic truth, yet math people will have no
>>> clue about this because all of math is syntactic rather than semantic.
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>
>> I thought you previously were claiming that all of mathematics had to
>> be analytic!
>>
>
> Everyone that knows philosophy of mathematics knows that this is true.