Hi Richard Ruquist You still think everything's objective. But nobody know how to code 1p because it's subjective. 3p is objective, 1p is subjective.
[Roger Clough], [[email protected]] 12/3/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-02, 08:16:03 Subject: Re: Semantic vs logical truth Roger, Computers will do 1p truth when their results become emergent in which case they will be doing the coding as well so to speak. Richard On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > 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], [[email protected]] > 12/2/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Bruno Marchal > Receiver: everything-list > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
