On 4/16/2013 11:50 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 16/04/2013 9:51 PM, fom wrote: >> On 4/16/2013 10:31 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> > >> > >> >> <snip> >> >> > >>> the _meta phrase_ "is proven" can not be expressed by a FOL language: >>> "is proven" pertains to a meta truth, which in turns can't be equated >>> to a language expression: truth and semantics aren't the same. >> >> >> In case the statements above cause you difficulties. > > I don't think it does me, in the context of defining truth as > part of an encoded finite string. This kind of truth isn't > of different kind from the truth of finite proof of formal system. > (Different kinds of rules of "inference" of course, nonetheless _finite_ > is the keyword). >> >> Not that you are committed to anything in these links. >> >> It is simply evidence that your statement is not >> without foundation. >> >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/ >> >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-provability/ >> >> >> The first paragraph in this link expresses criticism >> of Tarski's theory of truth (semantic conception) >> >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#CorWitFac > > These links are somewhat lengthy and I have to read them before > I could see any relevance to my Def-1 case. But you certainly > could let it be known, if you see anything there related to > my Def-1. >
I did not provide them for you to necessarily read them.
They serve merely to substantiate that there are opinions in the literature that may be similar to your own.