You mean a la making a sharp distinction between minds and worlds so that minds are necessarily not part of the world?

Making sharp distinction by pointing out that the statement "The truth is mind dependent" is not a truth, without contradiction, about the world.

Because you don't consider minds to be part of the world, right?

I don't care about minds.

I am pointing out that the truth of the statement "Truth is mind dependent" is not a world dependent truth by definition.

Regardless if the mind is part of the world or not part of the world.

If minds are part of the world, and truths are dependent on minds, then aren't truths world-dependent (on the part of the world that is minds)?

Ok.
But then we have the statement "Truth is mind dependent and world dependent."
You can't have the statement "Truth is exclusively mind dependent" and then claim that the truth of this statement is world dependent, that too is a contradiction.

They'd be the same. Truth is exclusively mind-dependent. Mind is part of the world.

It would be like saying

(1) Everest's peak is Everest-dependent and world-dependent

and

(2) Everest's peak is exclusively Everest-dependent.

That's not contradictory. Everest is part of the world.

Except saying "truth is exclusively mind dependent" and "truth is mind dependent and world dependent" are not the same thing.
They are actually different.

(2) Everest's peak is exclusively Everest-dependent.

That's not contradictory. Everest is part of the world. — Terrapin Station

If Everest is part of the world, then the peak of Everest is NOT exclusively Everest depedent, because Everest is part of the world, then Everests peak will be world depedent as well.

Note the logical operator AND that I have used.

It is a contradiction to say "The peak of Everest is exclusively Everest dependent and world dependent"

They're the same thing if something is world-dependent solely by virtue of being mind-dependent, where minds are part of the world.

No, they are not.

Ok. So how do you put sentences into a world? Truth appears not only to be mind-dependent, but linguistically-capable-mind-dependent.

In that case: presumably, Julius Caesar believed that the sun rose in the East. But he didn't speak English, because English didn't exist then, so he didn't believe the sentence, "The sun rises in the East." Looks like sentences can't be your truth-bearers.

Explain what the difference would be then.

I did explain the difference.

The logical operator AND is the difference.

So "and" necessarily denotes a difference of extension in your view?

Not in my view, it is a rule of logic.

Right. So "That man is Barack Obama and that man is the president of the United States" is a sentence that denotes two different things extensionally as a "rule of logic" in your view.

In that case: presumably, Julius Caesar believed that the sun rose in the East. But he didn't speak English, because English didn't exist then, so he didn't believe the sentence, "The sun rises in the East." Looks like sentences can't be your truth-bearers. — Pneumenon

He believed the appropriate Latin sentence to be true.

Except saying "truth is exclusively mind dependent" and "truth is mind dependent and world dependent" are not the same thing.
They are actually different — m-theory

If I were to say that this product is exclusively for women then it wouldn't be a contradiction to then say that it's for people. The latter would just be imprecise, and when said together with the former, redundant.

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction
Note the truth table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction#Truth_table

So "that man" must be both Barrack Obama AND the potus.
If one or the other is not true, then the entire statement is regarded as false.

this product is exclusively for women — Michael

Is not logically equivalent to
"This product is for people"

I'm not saying that it's equivalent. I'm saying that it isn't a contradiction to say "this product is for women (only) and people (only)".

Ok but it would be a contradiction to say that it is both.
"This product is exclusively for women and this product is for people."
The set of people also contains men.

It isn't a contradiction. If it's for women then ipso facto it's for people. It would however, be redundant to say that it's both.

Or for another example, "this is a triangle and a shape".

So by the same token, "truth is mind-dependant and world-dependant".

Ah! So was that sentence appropriate because it would eventually translate into the English "The sun rises in the East," or for some other reason? Also, what makes those two sentences bearers of the same truth?

If the set of people contains men then it is a contradiction to say.

"This product is exclusively for women and this product is for all people" because some people are not women.

No it isn't. Shapes include circles, but it's not a contradiction to say "this is a triangle and a shape".

This is not equivalent to my example.

So if you say "This is exclusively a triangle and it is also a shape"

It does not have set membership of exclusively triangles, it also has set membership of shapes.

This is not equivalent to my example.

So if you say "This is exclusively a triangle and it is also a shape"

It does not have set membership of exclusively triangles, it also has set membership of shapes. — m-theory

What you're apparently saying here is that

IF:

* φ is a property of Fs
* φ is ONLY a property of Fs; φ is not found elsewhere
* Fs are Gs
* The class of Gs includes things that are not Fs as well

Then we can't say "φ is exclusively a property of Fs and φ is a property of some Gs" without stating something contradictory?

A Venn diagram for that, by the way, would simply be this:



What's contradictory about that?

No.

I am saying that if some G's are F, and some G's not F.

Then you cannot say that All G's have

φ — Terrapin Station