What does K(p /\ -Kp) mean

What does K(p /\ -Kp) mean to convert this into an English sentence we would have to know the meaning of every word in the sentence
if i said K(p /\ -Kp means "Gibble of an unclouts hibble while also having gibble of not having gibble of an unclouts hibble.

you would ask me what gibble clout and hibble mean
if I said I dont know, then you would say my statement is meaningless"

now some say

but sadly they dont tell us what
knowledge and truth mean
so again you would say their statement is meaningless

Hi,

Most likely, the symbols mean: x knows that either p or not-p (e.g., you know that it’s either raining or not raining). It’s the law of contradiction which, more precisely, is: not both p and not-p, where ‘p’ is a declarative sentence, or statement able to be either true or false.

Blessings,

R

but if you dont know what “know” means
then
“x knows” is meaningless
as
you would say with out knowing what gibbl mean this statement is meaningless
" x gibbl

It directly means:

K of p as well as K of not K of p

Using the idea of raining:
It would mean:
K = Knowing
p = raining

  • = not
    /\ = conjunction

So that would mean:
Knowledge of raining as well as Knowledge of not Knowledge of raining.

Translated into common tongue that would be:
Knowing that it is raining while also Knowing that you don’t Know that it is raining.

hahahahah rubbish with out telling us what
know means

K = Knowing is as meaningless as
K = gibble

Tell you what Lady, how about you describe what “Know” is in your mind and we can try…try to get through it that way.

Or is it beyond your brilliance to tell us humble folk what “Know” is?

I know I dont know what know is

hows that for a paradox
tell fitch he might use it in his next work

hahahahahahhaha

Hi everyone,

Can’t really see this thread lasting much longer (although it seems I can’t meaningfully claim to know of such)!

Best wishes to all knowledgeable persons.

R

what’s wrong with the old account of knowledge? It may not be sufficient, and there might not be any beliefs which may meet this criteria such that we might have no knowledge of anything, but we do have an idea in principle of what knowledge means…what things we’d need in order to then say we have knowledge. Knowledge is just a word, an adjective, with a definition.

Sure it is, xzc: ‘True Justified Belief’. Good enough for my ole great-great granny back in 1876 and it’s good enough for me!

In any case, what’s wrong with it? Plato was contented enough.

R

ladyjane,

Playing the troll when you haven’t the slightest idea what the mathemeticians are actually discussing is a bit of foolishness on your part. They are discussing mathematical concepts and you are applying a metaphysical argument as if you have superior knowing - which is more than obvious that you don’t. Either argue from the math presented or start your own thread on metaphysical knowing. Laugh that off.

I have been arguing from the maths presented
fact is the maths is meaningless symbols manipulated by arbitary rules
unless you tell us what in this case truth and know mean you cant convert the maths into an english sentence

as i have said before
1+1=2 is just meaningles symbols manipulated by rules
untill you tell us what “1” is and “2” is all we have is meaningless symbols
and when you say they are numbers but cant tell us what a number is with out circularity then again your 1+1=2 becomes meaningless crap

you all can crap on about contradiction conjuctives modal logic till the cows come home
all you are doing is showing of your skills in logic as well showing your complete ignorance of what it all means in english

all this K(p /\ -Kp)."is meaningless rubbish untill you tell us what the symbols mean -all very sexy logic and showing us all just how smart you all are
but
also you show us how dumb you all when you say

with out having a clue what true means or knowledge means

hahahahaha

lj,

Yeah, from a simplistic perspective plain 'ol english doesn’t work some times. Meta-meta discussions are like that once in awhile, but your perspective may not be the only one in play here. Every once in awhile it isn’t about definitions but understanding.

Fine, I’ll bite, since that’s directly quoting me.

Look, you don’t HAVE to be involved, first off all.

Second of all, KNOWLEDGE is the general definition of Knowledge.
If you walk into court and tell the judge that no one can hold you to the law because they don’t truly KNOW the law because they don’t KNOW what KNOWLEDGE is, they’ll laugh at you and prosecute you anyway.

Saying that no one KNOWS what KNOWLEDGE is means less than our symbolic representation of properties of our subjective reality.

Just because you don’t like the representations that we, as a collective mass of humans, have derived to represent aspects of reality that we see and interpret as an overall collective through time, that doesn’t mean that those symbols are incorrect.

If there is a subjective reality and an objective reality, then what you want is for us to think beyond our capacity of being human; beyond our scope of subjective perspective and by extension, interpretive reasoning.

That, however, is actually impossible as no one is capable of thinking or envisioning that which is beyond the capacity of their species’ capacity, and that is exactly what you are asking us to do.

Since we are bound by our capacity as a species to only the subjective and the reasoning as a tool that we have in our mind, then we MUST label and identify “things” to group the properties of said “things” so to be capable of communicating to other humans our meaning to the best extent that is possible with the tools that we have available to us at the time; of course refining this communication as more tools are learned.

This means that when someone says, 1 + 1 = 2 it means that we value the concept of one “thing” and another of the same “thing” as being that of two of the same “things” in concern with the concept of quantity as a unit of measuring.

That is all that that means.

For instance, one human being standing next to another human being is counted as two human beings.
That’s a pretty simply concept. You stand next to your friend and anyone around that looks at the two of you will see two people, at the very least.

It’s like arguing that an Inch doesn’t mean anything, or that a meter doesn’t mean anything.
No, alone, they mean nothing, but used by HUMANS they mean everything.

The general concept of our silly little symbols and measurements has allowed us to take human lives, bring food to the hungry, and save lives with medical procedures.

That’s far from meaningless.

You confuse the idea that the symbol is the value, but you forget that the value is only there because it is the value that WE place on it after watching it react to our intrigue acting as that value that we assigned.

The value and symbols that we use are not the absolute of a thing, but the representation of a thing as we have seen it in reaction to our perspective intrigue.

That means that if I write, % ) @ :: !!

That means NOTHING to you.

But if I say that I have seen this new thing that hurts to touch, it’s bright, causes warmth, I call it %.
Now we already have the dry and brown stuff from trees that we call @.

Now I tell you that I have seen % and @ thrown together and the reaction was that by adding % and @, you get this thing that I’m holding, which I call !!, but is basically @ with % so I can carry it around.

Now, you want to have this “recipe” so you ask me to write it down.
I do and to explain the concepts of “throwing together with” and “making” or “makes”, I explain a couple symbols.
I tell you that “)” is my way of saying “together with” and “::” is my way of writing “makes”, then when I type:
% ) @ :: !!

You can read that as:
Wood together with Fire makes Torch.

Symbols mean nothing (LIKE A STOP SIGN) until you place meaning (STOP YOUR VEHICLE BEFORE THE INTERSECTION) and consequence of the meaning (YOU SEE A CAR GET HIT BY ANOTHER CAR FOR NOT STOPPING AT THE SIGN) with them.

Luckily, our words and numbers accomplish both of these (meaning and consequence); unless, apparently, you wish to stop short of accepting the collective meaning and consequence, to which I can only say, “Shut up”.

If you simply can’t accept this, then you really shouldn’t even bother writing any sentence as the symbols that you are writing represent nothing without understanding this basic concept.


By the way, if you would have stepped down from your soap box and actually read the content that you are taking an excerpt from with your above quote, you would have noticed that I was showing Fitch was wrong according to basic logic.
So you’re continued “buddy pairing” between me and Fitch continues to show just how incapable of reading you are making yourself out to be.

You think I hold K(p/-Kp) as a valid claim when I have shown just the opposite a few different times.
Do you not like man’s representation of reality with symbols because you are incapable of reading them properly?

if you dint know the meaning of the words you give to the symbols the symbols are then nothing but meaningless rubbish and as such you have represented nothing about reality

you can say
K(p /\ -Kp)
represents something about realioy
but if you convert it in the an english sentence but dont know what the words mean then it is just meaningless symbols and represents nothing

I know what the words mean perfectly fine. You seem to be having some issues with it that, try as I have, I cannot resolve.

so tell us what
know
knowledge
true
mean to you
then tells us what they mean for fitch

then tell us why your and his definition have achieved universal acceptance when

and telll us which theory of truth you are useing

know
the state between the holder of information and the information.

knowledge
that which is understood as acceptable to the holder of information that is capable of being recalled by the holder of the said information and provokes a creation of a new holding of thought through the brain’s protein primarily in the back of the skull.

true
that which is held to validate in soundness to the holder of information upon association of that information with other information (previously defined as Knowledge), reflection, meditation, and decision; capable of exchange upon further assimilation of more information that has cause or affect upon the information used to compile that which is held to produce what the holder presently holds as true.

To Fitch, they mean the concept relative to the above.

Because the above definitions are universally applicable to any detailed and contrived definition of know, knowledge, and true as they simply core out the root of what any person tries to define by applying a solid state to that which does not have one.

YOUR DEFINITIONS ARE ALL CIRCULAR THUS RUBBISH AS THEY TELL US NOTHING

lets start with

information is defined as

answers.com/topic/information

thus
we have “know” means “the state between the holder of knowledge and the knowledge”
ie knowledge is a synonym for information

but “know” means

thus your definition of “know” amounts a circular definition
ie
To possess knowledge means “the state between the holder of knowledge and the knowledge”

now your definition

again note that information is a synomym for knowledge
thus this definition is circular also

now your definition

note the definition of true uses true
thus this definition is circular also

ALSO the definition of “true” uses information
but information means knowledge
but stumps definition of knowledge is circular as it uses “information”- which means knwoledge
thus we dont know what “information” means in his definition of “true” as we dont know what “knowledge” means as its definition is circular

your definitions are all circular thus rubbish as they tell us nothing but
true means true
the have knowledge means to have knowledge
and
knowledge means knowledge

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHH -BELLY HURTS- AHAHAHAHAHA

I really have no understanding of this subject so please forgive me if this is totally off base heh.

“Knowledge of an unknown truth while also having Knowledge of not having Knowledge of an unknown truth.”

Would the creation of the universe be an apt example of this? for instance i “know” it exists and that therefor at some point it didn’t but i have no idea how or why? while being aware of the fact I’m not able to answer my own understanding.

Like i said I’m totally over my head here but really interested in this theory.