Don't expect too much from version numbering schemes; they can follow sufficiently objective conventions (breaking changes for typical usage or not, worth announcing according to the authors or not) but not convey complex information.
There is no way to tell which ones in a set of equally major versions are LTS or not using version numbers because there are often too many; for example Java has major version numbers for major language features and standard library additions and removals, with reasonably relevant versions currently spanning from 8 (1.8 in the old numbering) to 21, three or four of them LTS and the others transitional.
There is also no way to tell obsolete LTS versions from current ones using version numbers, without explicit documentation committing to dates or making EOL announcement.
There is no way to tell which ones in a set of equally major versions are LTS or not using version numbers because there are often too many; for example Java has major version numbers for major language features and standard library additions and removals, with reasonably relevant versions currently spanning from 8 (1.8 in the old numbering) to 21, three or four of them LTS and the others transitional.
There is also no way to tell obsolete LTS versions from current ones using version numbers, without explicit documentation committing to dates or making EOL announcement.