On 10/19/2013 12:39 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 19/10/2013 11:32 AM, fom wrote: >> On 10/19/2013 12:23 PM, Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> On 19/10/2013 5:23 AM, Peter Percival wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>> >>>>> What definition of "invalidity" were you referring to _here_ ? Mine? >>>> >>>> If you use the word "invalidity" is newsgroups called sci.logic and >>>> sci.math then it should probably be with its usual technical >>>> meaning. If >>>> you use it in another sense you should probably say what sense that is >>>> right from the start. >>> >>> I already did in this very thread define one or two forms of invalidity >>> for meta statements. If you don't remember then say so and I'll try to >>> cite the post for you. >>> >>> In any rate, one of the forms is that: >>> >>> H => C >>> >>> where it's impossible to know the truth value of H given all available >>> definitions, permissible reasoning methods within the underlying logic >>> framework [FOL(=) in this case.] >>> >> >> And, the meaning of "impossible to know"? > > Right there: right in front of you. > > _A meta truth_ is said to be impossible to know if it's not in the > collection of meta truths, resulting from all available definitions, > permissible reasoning methods, within the underlying logic framework > [FOL(=) in this case]. >
And, the specification of "all available definitions"?
Let me remind you that everyone has asked you for a definition of "true".