"If it were trivial, would it deserve an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? "Why are you depending on Stanford to establish truth?

So you are saying I have no idea what is important, but since it is in Stanford's page it must be.

You are establishing belief on someone else's intellect.

That seems like a lack of integrity in being able to say and observe the truth.

Is that not how politicians talk? I am dishonest, but it is alright since others are more dishonest than me? Why are you asserting on "confidence" on Stanford. Then it is simply an emotion you are asserting on. Assert on your intellect, and then at least give me a good challenge. Because so far it is extremely trivial, like two children fighting and shouting.

"He discusses a notion of truth in an entirely different context - formal logic/languages. It is certainly not trivial,

let alone circular."It is extremely trivial, under my truth. He is only giving a rule. Is his rule proven? Anyone can throw a rule. Throwing a rule is trivial to me. All rules have assumptions. All definitions are assumptions. You have to evaluate what is true? And can the same thing be made true under lesser assumptions?

Do you not think that it would be important?

It is nonetheless a good rule and definition, but depends on an assumption on top of it, so obviously it cannot be proven inside of it. See the similarity to Godel's second theorem?. I will leave you to figure out 1 + 1 = 2

"Read 'It is important to note that as Tarski originally formulated it, this theory applies only to formal languages. "Exactly my point. He has made an assumption and his rules are only valid under that assumption. Are you trying to say anything else? That seems to be precisely what you mean to say. Tell me when you have another original thought, other than this rule, that rule blah blah. What is the assumption for the rule to be established? Did you ever think to question that?

"Yeah you need none. But your argument has no content whatsoever, and therefore is trivial. "A: That is subjective. How are you defining "content"? So under your definition of content, it could be trivial, but please give me a definition, and I will show where and how your definition would go wrong.

"One should not get angry at what is true."A: I am not. But one should have some respect and manners as well, when communicating, otherwise are we really better than animals?

" It cannot seriously be considered as an argument, exactly because you claim to get something out of nothing (no assumptions at all). "A: Yes that is exactly my claim. Read it again and try refuting even a single line of my argument. You will not be able to do so. Come to me when you come up with something which could even possibly refute a single line of what I wrote.

" You are trying to build a sort of logical analogue of a 'perpetuum mobile'. Of course I know enough to evaluate what you wrote, it requires no sophistication; the flaws are obvious."A: What are the flaws? If they are obvious: point them out to me, and I will show you how and why they are non-obvious. Beat me in a civilized argument. You just seem to be throwing words like "obvious" around to make fun and hit below the belt.

Let's play a game.

Make an assertion. If A then B.

Let's identify A(assumptions), and then let's see how to get to B from A. Try putting your own arguments in a clear concise and readable manner. Say that

A: This is my list of assumptions.

This is my method of deriving B.

This is B.

Let's talk like that. I mean you do have Euler in your nick right? I think you can give something as simple as this a shot?

"Even if you had a point, it would be considered to be of no value, because everyone else assumes that it is meaningful to say that something is true (so did Descartes, Tarski, etc indeed any scholar)"A: No value to you maybe, but I just solved the problem of sarcasm detection in NLP ( gave the best possible solution and established in reason why no better solution than that currently exists) with a friend in under 30 minutes, using my theory. ( Breaking Descartes's argument is one application of it. This was broken in under 90 minutes, by applying that particular theory.( you can have a glimpse of it, on the previous two times I have discussed that on AocZone, and was ridiculed here, and laughed at. Refute my argument by pointing out where I am wrong.

Right now all you are saying is: This is of no use. Wrong my theory solves a lot of things, and this is but one application. Do you really think making the cardinality of the set of assumptions required to establish a belief, smaller is a trivial thing?

What did Karl Popper( could have been someone else, he pops to mind right now, google the exact thing) say.

If I can say A using N assumptions, and if I can say A using N-1 assumptions, then the second A is more absolute or more fundamental truth than the first A, because it is established under lesser assumptions. The more rules or assumptions you define, the more likely you will go wrong(need to have more data to check them). How is that not obvious to you?

"thus what you say cannot seriously refute what Descartes, Tarski, etc. said."A: Again I did not say that. That is what you think I said. I said I beat them at establishing a more fundamental truth. I made N-1 assumptions than them.

"Your main claim is that 'truth cannot be defined'. Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant: Descartes etc. don't assume that truth can be defined, they just assume that a notion of 'truth' exists (but what this notion is we don't know, we merely assume existence). "A:

1) Descartes etc. don't assume that truth can be defined

2) just assume that a notion of 'truth' exists

What is the difference between 1) and 2). Both have an assumption there. At least read before you write something down.

I am simply saying an assumption exists, which I have removed and you are continuously trying to justify that assumption.

I am saying there is no need to make that assumption in the first place at all. N-1 assumptions. Do not think I said this or that. I said exactly what I said. Nothing more nothing less. And it is true.

"It is true that the set of real numbers is closed and open "A: Wow you can speak some truth. But,

"(this is trivial if you look at the definitions)."A: Please write down the definition and I will show you how they are either ambiguous or use the axiom of infinity. There is no other way to derive them.

"Closed and open are not notions that exclude each other. Sets are not doors (which are either open or closed). Clearly you are not familiar with these notions."A: Yes, I am familiar a little bit with them,enough to know it. You need to make use of an axiom of infinity, to establish close or open set anyways, and then you simply bend the rules in set theory to explain what a set should be or could be. Just more rules.

You continuously keep throwing rules. Please try and come up with an original thought.

"The definitions of open and closed do not depend on this axiom. They rely on standard logic, the set-theoretic notions of union, intersection, and complement."A: The definition might not, but then the establishment or proof or deriving the reals or putting them under either "open", or "close" will depend on the axiom of infinity. These are again rules which you HAVE to make up, because Descartes made that one extra assumption. And you need consistency in your formal language of mathematics.

Godel said you cannot have both consistency and completeness. You do not want completeness, but try to be consistent, under your set of assumptions. All those rules are simply rules needed to maintain consistency. True or False?

Edit: Please forgive the tone if you find it offensive. I always respond nicely to nice things. I could be wrong, and I have no shame in admitting it. I would happily accept I am wrong, but at least show me where I am wrong, and stop saying this is "obvious", without defining obvious, or trivial, without defining "trivial" etc.. Mistakes are obvious without pointing them out.

Maybe you do not like this, but at least give it a shot that there is a non zero probability of what I am saying could be true.

I mean do you think anyone here is capable of saying what I am saying in such clear, concise and precise answers to each and every one of your questions? Right now, you are not being concise. All you are saying is that some other guy said this, someone said something else. In reasoning we are in the business of doubt, otherwise how are we different from religion if we just say that we trust what someone else is saying? Pick any one line of my argument and refute it. Ask nicely and I promise I will respond nicely.