Isn't it an objection to say that the definitions of the terms in play are arbitrary and not tied to reality? Or more to what I think Quine's point was, you would have to do a lot of empirical work to figure out what definitions to put into your database. That is, they aren't actually analytical truths because what you have put into the database has been determined not by definitions, but by empirical inquiry.

Otherwise it's just saying something like: given A is true, and given A = B, B is true. But the interest in analytical a priori truths was generally motivated by the idea that they were aspects of reality that could be known with certainty, and which might act as a foundation for the justification of knowledge, not by the truism that "anything defined as true by definition is true by definition, given we accept that definition."

Going out and cataloging a bunch of non-analytical truths (empirical facts), throwing them into a database, and then saying "I have now defined every fact as true by definition," doesn't solve the problem. Particularly, it fails to solve the problem if you embrace any theory of truth other than completely deflationary ones. For, "cats are a type of sailboat" could no doubt be defined as an "analytical truth," by fiat and entered into a database, but this would not make it true that cats are a type of sailboat. This would, under most theories of truth, just make it a falsehood.

There is a reason facts were not considered analytical, why Hume's Fork, which kicks off the distinction, distinguishes between "relations of ideas" (analytical) and "matters of fact." You could make innumerable databases purporting to be "true models of the world," that vary in what they define as true. How would one compare these databases and determine which "analytical truths" are actually true? They would have to go out and observe the world... which means, in point of fact, the truths aren't analytical because determining their truth value does not depend on their definition (because empirical facts aren't analytical).

Isn't it an objection to say that the definitions of the terms in play are arbitrary and not tied to reality? Or more to what I think Quine's point was, you would have to do a lot of empirical work to figure out what definitions to put into your database. That is, they aren't actually analytical truths because what you have put into the database has been determined not by definitions, but by empirical inquiry. — Count Timothy von Icarus

With my redefinition of the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction any and all knowledge
that can be completely verified as true entirely on the basis of text <is> stipulated to be analytic.

That "cats are animals" is verified as true on the basis of the axiom {cats are animals}.
The only way that the finite string "cats are animals" is associated with the semantic
meaning {cats are animals} is that this is stipulated. If you ask a person that only speaks
Chinese "are cats animals?" they will say: "No speak English" (in Chinese).

With my redefinition of the {analytic} side of the analytic/synthetic distinction any and all knowledge
that can be completely verified as true entirely on the basis of text <is> stipulated to be analytic.

Yes, and most (arguably all) facts fail to actually fall into your category.

That "cats are animals" is verified as true on the basis of the axiom {cats are animals}.

No, "cats are animals," is verified by experience. Consider that we could just as easily stipulate "cats are racecars," "cats are robots," and "cats are rocket ships" as axioms. Then, using the same processes, we could "verify" that these are analytical truths entirely on the basis of the text/axioms.

Your concept of what makes things analytical truths would entail that literally any arbitrarily chosen axiom is "an analytical truth." But this is clearly nonsense, cats are not racecars just because we have stated an axiom that "cats are racecars." How does one distinguish between a bad "axioms" that are clearly nonsense, such as "cats are sailboats," and good axioms that are true, like "cats are animals?" Through experience of what cats are.

No one thought of solving the distinction by advancing the solution that "if you arbitrarily declare all true things to be true by definition and all false things to be false by definition, then every truth becomes analytical," because it totally misses why the distinction is useful in the first place. It presupposes that you already know what is true and what is false. But then how do you find out which "axiom" is true so as to posit it in the first place? Certainly not on the basis of the word' meanings alone. Nothing about the term "Ravena" entails, "capital of the late Western Roman Empire," for instance.

No, "cats are animals," is verified by experience. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is not true. No amount of experience tells us that "cats are animals" means "los gatos son animales"(Spanish) which means "猫是动物"(Chinese).

One wonders then what the utility of language classes are then, or how it is that people living in a foreign country come to speak its language. :roll:

But it seems like the point stands, how does one differentiate between true and false axioms such as: "Michelle is the tallest woman in the room," "Springfield is the capital of Illinois," "Mogadishu is the capital of Florida ," "weed is a slang term for marijuana," "Alfred the Great is a slang term for cocaine," or "Helium has an atomic number of 8," etc. These aren't going to be shown to be true of false analytically, and you could make any of them "axioms" even though some are false.

But it seems like the point stands, how does one differentiate between true and false axioms such as: "Michelle is the tallest woman in the room," — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Michelle is the tallest woman in the room" is not analytic because it requires sense data from the sense organs to verify that {Michelle is in the room}.

The way that it currently works for humans is that all of the facts of the world are stipulated as axioms. When we look up: "Is Paris the capital of the planet Mars"? We find that it is neither an axiom nor derived from axioms thus it is not true.

No one figures out that "Paris is the capitol of France". No one experiences the physical sensation that "Paris is the capitol of France". They merely memorize that "Paris is the capitol of France" is true.

My ultimate purpose of redefining {analytic} is to abolish undecidability such as this:
Since "This sentence is NOT true." is not an axiom and cannot be derived from axioms thus we correctly determine that it is not true, yet this does not make it false.

Ah, so when the Roman capital moves to Milan people learn about this to memorize it... how exactly? How exactly did people come to memorize the fact that Senator Obama has become President Obama? Your solution involves totally ignoring how facts are actually know and you still haven't explain why/how false axioms wouldn't be added. In virtue of what are facts verified as true so that they can be stated as true by definition? The periodic table wasn't a given to humanity, it had to be discovered, etc.

Hume's Fork is about how we come to know truths. The distinction is about how people can come to know things. A magical inviolable database where all true statements exist and no false ones sort of misses the point of debate.

Hume's Fork is about how we come to know truths. The distinction is about how people can come to know things. A magical inviolable database where all true statements exist and no false ones sort of misses the point of debate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The only way that people learn that expressions of language are true is that they are told or they are derived from expressions of language they they are told are true. Without the infrastructure of the conventions of language they could not possibly know that "dogs bark". They would hear "noise" not even knowing that it is called "noise".

Ah, so when the Roman capital moves to Milan people learn about this to memorize it... how exactly? How exactly did people come to memorize the fact that Senator Obama has become President Obama? Your solution involves totally ignoring how facts are actually know and you still haven't explain why/how false axioms wouldn't be added. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You are disagreeing that there can be a correct model of the world because you don't understand
how it is updated? How did humans find out that Obama is no longer president?

Interesting! I think Leibniz would approve Cyc project.

So the discovery of the period table occured because one day someone said "this is by definition true?" We know water is H2O because someone happened to declare "this is true by definition?" People don't know that dogs bark by hearing dogs bark, but rather because one day someone declared the "dogs bark is axiomatically true?" Come on.

You are disagreeing that there can be a correct model of the world because you don't understand
how it is updated?

The empirical fact/analytic distinction relates to how facts are discovered/verified. Things like "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, were discovered empirically."

You're fundementally misunderstanding what the distinction is and why it is important. Even assuming some sort of magical list of all true statements, it would still be the case that the way one verifies that fact statements on the list are true is through sense experience. There is a reason the distinction is literally between analytical truths and facts, because they are not the same thing, and what makes them different is what is required to verify them.

Water is H2O is a good example in that this was not known for human history. Establishing the synonymy of "water" and "H2O" requires matters of facts, which is part of Quine's point.

But more to the point, even if you don't buy those critiques, it still remains the case that "analytic" never referred to matters of fact. Kant's definition of an analytic truth are those truths whose negation is a contradiction. "Ravenna is not the capital of the Roman Empire," is not a contradiction, even though Ravenna was one capital of that empire. "Ravenna" defines a city in northern Italy, it is not a synonym for "capital of the Roman Empire."

You're fundementally misunderstanding what the distinction is and why it is important. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Analytic(Olcott) is a stipulative definition that retains the essence of the original {proven completely true or false entirely on the basis of its meaning} and adds that this proof must be entirely contained within expressions of language.

This stipulative definition specifies that "Cats are animals." <is> Analytic(Olcott) and "There is a cat in my living room right now." <is not> Analytic(Olcott). We finally have an unequivocal criterion measure where disagreement is simply incorrect.

In other words when-so-ever the truth of an expression of language S can be determined by analyzing the relation of S to other expressions of language then S is Analytic(Olcott).

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

This stipulative definition specifies that "Cats are animals." <is> Analytic(Olcott) and "There is a cat in my living room right now." <is not> Analytic(Olcott). We finally have an unequivocal criterion measure where disagreement is simply incorrect. — PL Olcott

How about "There is a cat or there is not a cat in my living room right now." ? Is this sentence analytic or not?

How about "There is a cat or there is not a cat in my living room right now." ? Is this sentence analytic or not? — Corvus

Every expression of language that can be verified as true or false entirely on the basis of textual analysis is Analytic(Olcott), thus your expression is Analytic(Olcott).

Every expression of language that can be verified as true or false entirely on the basis of textual analysis is Analytic(Olcott), thus your expression is Analytic(Olcott). — PL Olcott

Yes correct. It is true regardless a cat is or is not in the living room.

For, "cats are a type of sailboat" could no doubt be defined as an "analytical truth," by fiat and entered into a database, but this would not make it true that cats are a type of sailboat. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Cats are my favorite kind of sailboat, because they are fast.

A catboat (alternate spelling: cat boat) is a sailboat with a single sail on a single mast set well forward in the bow of a very beamy and (usually) shallow draft hull. Typically they are gaff rigged, though Bermuda rig is also used. Most are fitted with a centreboard, although some have a keel.

For, "cats are a type of sailboat" could no doubt be defined as an "analytical truth," by fiat and entered into a database, but this would not make it true that cats are a type of sailboat.
— Count Timothy von Icarus

Cats are my favorite kind of sailboat, because they are fast. — wonderer1

The database that I referred to has always been the the set of general knowledge of the current actual world that can be expressed using language. For example it is true that "cats are animals" thus disagreement is simply incorrect.

The database that I referred to has always been the the set of general knowledge of the current actual world that can be expressed using language. For example it is true that "cats are animals" thus disagreement is simply incorrect. — PL Olcott

Why is what is "general knowledge" so important? Typically, when I am talking about sailboats, I am talking with fellow sailors who understand "cat" is short for catamaran, and what a cat looks like:

My goal is (1) to make Boolean True(x) computable. (2) This requires that a machine has an understanding of the world at least equal to the best human experts in every field. Currently humans do not have as much as a good guess between truth and well crafted lies.

My goal is (1) to make Boolean True(x) computable. (2) This requires that a machine has an understanding of the world at least equal to the best human experts in every field. — PL Olcott

Sounds like a wildly unrealistic goal to me.

Currently humans do not have as much as a good guess between truth and well crafted lies. — PL Olcott

I'd have to say that there is a lot of variation from human to human and subject to subject.

Sounds like a wildly unrealistic goal to me. — wonderer1

The first step of this is to correctly refute the Tarski undefinability theorem. With the new LLM AI technology encoding knowledge of the world becomes feasible. It really needs Boolean True(L,x) to be computable to stop it from telling lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)

Well, another problem would be that human experts tend to be continually learning, so the system you describe would seem to inevitably lag behind human expertise. So unless the system is going to have a perceptual system, enabling it to become the world's leading expert at everything, how can it avoid lagging behind human experts?

Well, another problem would be that human experts tend to be continually learning, so the system you describe would seem to inevitably lag behind human expertise. — wonderer1

The system would be hooked up to reliable online sources of news and academic articles. This would make it "the world's leading expert at everything" especially because it could cross correlate between differing academic disciplines. My plan is to merely design the architectural infrastructure so that Boolean True(L, x) could be eventually fully implemented.

So far I can't even find hardly any people that are totally sure that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true" is simply not a truth bearer.

My whole point in this thread is to establish a definition of {Analytic} truth that forms the basic foundation of Boolean True(L, x).

And what of Yablo’s paradox?

Every expression of language that can be verified as true or false entirely on the basis of textual analysis is Analytic(Olcott), thus your expression is Analytic(Olcott). — PL Olcott

Analytic knowledge is still limited in a sense that it doesn't add any new information to the knowledge. If you knew the meaning of cat, then you don't need the AI system to look at what it means. If you didn't know the meaning of cat, then you can look up a dictionary or google it.
Therefore, why do you need the AI analytic info system?

The formal semantic class {dogs} is a node in the above inheritance hierarchy. — PL Olcott

What about the case where cat means a plant?
"What is a cat plant?
Chamaedorea Cataractarum, also known as a Cat Palm, is a small, bushy palm tree that is native to Southern Mexico and Central America. It's an easy-to-care-for houseplant with beautiful foliage!" - Google

You have an analytic expression in your system, which says, cat is animal.
But when someone asks about cat (to mean the plant), the system will say cat is animal.
The answer from the AI "Cat is animal." is a wrong answer. The answer must be "Cat is plant." is right.

So you update the system after the complaint.

Cat is animal.
Cat is plant.

But after the update, the system has two expressions for the same word cat, which are contradictory.

And what of Yablo’s paradox? — Banno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Yablo
It is the same as asking someone to count to infinity, invalid input.

Analytic knowledge is still limited in a sense that it doesn't add any new information to the knowledge. If you knew the meaning of cat, then you don't need the AI system to look at what it means. If you didn't know the meaning of cat, then you can look up a dictionary or google it.
Therefore, why do you need the AI analytic info system? — Corvus

At some point everyone must some how be told the semantic meanings of otherwise meaningless finite strings. That "cats are animals" is stipulated to be true, thus an axiom of natural language. The entire body of Analytical(Olcott) truth is comprised of axioms and expressions derived from axioms. The Prolog computer language has this same architecture of Facts and Rules.

Axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html

Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics

Analytic(Olcott) provides the provides the foundation to make True(L, x) computable thus refuting the Tarski Undefinability theorem. The current issue with LLM AI technology is that it has no way to tell the difference between truth and lies. This causes it to tell lies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)

What about the case where cat means a plant?
"What is a cat plant?
Chamaedorea Cataractarum, also known as a Cat Palm, is a small, bushy palm tree that is native to Southern Mexico and Central America. It's an easy-to-care-for houseplant with beautiful foliage!" - Google — Corvus

Cat is animal. Cat is plant. — Corvus

Referring to a "Cat Palm" as a "Cat" is a type mismatch error that can be overridden by a temporary idiomatic expression.

Just like the Cyc project each unique sense meaning has its own unique GUID
9824b3dc-7237-4b4b-9a71-fb788348bc9a for the living animal "Cat"
9f444cef-f49f-4aa8-89bf-248ee5976b92 for "Cat Palm"