Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox

[olcott]

*Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox*
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
"x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
"x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248

is encoded as: x ∉ True if and only if p
"where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"

before it has been transformed page 275
we replace 'Tr' in this convention by 'Pr'

thus becomes // on page 275
"(1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p"
"where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"

*Proving that the Tarski Undefinability has an adapted*
*form of the Liar Paradox as the first line of his proof*

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[immibis]

On 1/24/24 18:46, olcott wrote:
> *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox*
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>   "x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248
>
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>   "x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248
>
> is encoded as: x ∉ True if and only if p
>   "where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"
>
> before it has been transformed page 275
>   we replace 'Tr' in this convention by 'Pr'
>
> thus becomes // on page 275
>   "(1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p"
>   "where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"
>
> *Proving that the Tarski Undefinability has an adapted*
> *form of the Liar Paradox as the first line of his proof*
>

How about you stick to the halting problem, which you actually have more
understanding about?

[Richard Damon]

On 1/24/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> *Tarski anchors his whole proof in the Liar Paradox*
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>   "x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248
>
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>   "x asserts that x is not a true sentence." page 248
>
> is encoded as: x ∉ True if and only if p
>   "where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"
>
> before it has been transformed page 275
>   we replace 'Tr' in this convention by 'Pr'
>
> thus becomes // on page 275
>   "(1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p"
>   "where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x"
>
> *Proving that the Tarski Undefinability has an adapted*
> *form of the Liar Paradox as the first line of his proof*
>

And you clearly don't see that he shows that this is a result of there
being a definition of Truth.

You just don't understand how logic works and are picking pieces out of
context, proving you just don't understand what you are talking about.