# Semantic vs logical truth

```Hi Bruno Marchal

Semantic truth I think is 1p (personal, private) truth,
which mnakes it contingent, while logical truth is necessary
as well as public or 3p truth. I think
comnputers have problems with 1p truth because
for one thing the coding is done by someone outside.```
```

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/2/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-12-02, 04:07:39
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or
the truth of necessary logic.

True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker "T" that is preserved by
the rules of inference.

This makes no sense. You confuse the propositional constant T, with the
semantical notion of truth. The first is expressible/definable formally (indeed
by T, or by "0 = 0" in arithmetic), the second is not (Tarski theorem). When we
say that truth is preserved by the rules of inference, we are concerned with
the second notion.

In applications it is interpreted as if it were the correspondence meaning of
'true'.

Like in arithmetic. Truth of "ExP(x)" means that it exists a n such that P(n),
at the "metalevel", which is the bare level in logic (that explains many
confusion).

But like all applications of mathematics, it may be only approximate.

Yes, but for arithmetic it is pretty clear, as we share our intuition on the
so-called standard finite numbers.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to