On 7/10/2013 8:52 AM, Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > >> Sigh. Taking 'describable' to mean 'describable (definable?) by any >> String of symbols' makes no sense! Symbols don't mean anything - it's >> impossible to use a string of symbols to describe anything. > > As you say, we must assign some meaning to a string of symbols for it > to describe anything. There is no well-defined totality of "all possible > meanings" a string or a set of strings could have, just as there is no > well-defined totality of "all possible works of art" or "all possible > attitudes to life" or "all meaningful English sentences", and > consequently no well-defined totality of all definable or describable > ordinals. For a language with a mathematically defined semantics -- such > as given by a truth definition for the language of set theory, analysis, > arithmetic, ... -- there is such a totality, but, provided we accept the > definition as legitimate, we can always move to a more expressive > language, e.g. by introducing a truth predicate. >
Could you provide some references concerning the augmentation by truth predicates?
Just something to give me an idea of where to look.