4 added 11 characters in body
source | link

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

 

You shouldIt is important to note that the so-called schema T:

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is justnot Tarski's definition of truth but rather it is a condition that, on Tarski'shis conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, a correct truth definition should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, andAnd so it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, a correct truth definition should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

 

It is important to note that the so-called schema T:

X is true if and only if p

is not Tarski's definition of truth but rather it is a condition that, on his conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, a correct truth definition should entail all instances of schema T). And so it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

3 added 24 characters in body
source | link

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, ita correct truth definition should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, it should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, a correct truth definition should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

2 added 31 characters in body
source | link

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy. He calls this sentence-schema schema T(that is, it should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy. He calls this sentence-schema schema T. It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

There's no problem in saying that

'7 is a prime number' is true if 7 can only be divided by 1 or itself

since it is of course consistent with

'7 is a prime number' iff 7 is a prime number.

You should note that

X is true if and only if p

called schema T, is just a condition that, on Tarski's conception, any definition of truth should satisfy (that is, it should entail all instances of schema T). It is of course not the definition of truth itself, and it does not mean that p is the only way, so to speak, in which X is true.

1
source | link