Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 270 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:24 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 20:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:04 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:14 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 23:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:09 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:42 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500
Re: Dogma -- other deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:51 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:16 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:03 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4k84g$3gc4t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335545 |
On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system >>>>> FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in >>>>> fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true. >>>>> >>>> >>>> bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow colored >>>> elephant in my living room right now. >>> >>> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include >>> EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there >>> exists a universe where that is true. >>> >> >> iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some >> physically existing or conception thing makes X true. > > Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a > set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to > make them true. > > A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has > cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size. > No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an acyclic graph. When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will point out your specific mistake. The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker for this term. The terms that this definition is composed of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite deep yet zero actual cycles. >> >> There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the >> field that make that same stupid mistake. >> >> > > But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, where > you are making a similar stupid mistake. > I have given this thirty years. You have given this a few minutes. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4k9gi$2219$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335556 |
On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system >>>>>> FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in >>>>>> fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow >>>>> colored elephant in my living room right now. >>>> >>>> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include >>>> EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there >>>> exists a universe where that is true. >>>> >>> >>> iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some >>> physically existing or conception thing makes X true. >> >> Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have a >> set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing to >> make them true. >> >> A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has >> cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size. >> > > No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered > about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an > acyclic graph. Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a truth-maker coming into them. > > When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will > point out your specific mistake. But I have conceptually. Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words have meaning without being defined by other words. There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to stand on their own without support from anything in the system. > > The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker > for this term. The terms that this definition is composed > of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite > deep yet zero actual cycles. And what makes that definition true? How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system? You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when you then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT system, and your problem continues. > >>> >>> There are some published papers by "leading experts" in the >>> field that make that same stupid mistake. >>> >>> >> >> But you clearly don't understand the problem with your statement, >> where you are making a similar stupid mistake. >> > > I have given this thirty years. > You have given this a few minutes. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kafp$3gc4t$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335563 |
On 6/15/2024 9:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic system
>>>>>>> FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory, and in
>>>>>>> fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow
>>>>>> colored elephant in my living room right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include
>>>>> EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there
>>>>> exists a universe where that is true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some
>>>> physically existing or conception thing makes X true.
>>>
>>> Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have
>>> a set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with nothing
>>> to make them true.
>>>
>>> A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has
>>> cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size.
>>>
>>
>> No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
>> about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
>> acyclic graph.
>
> Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a
> truth-maker coming into them.
>
When we do this that way that the Cyc project does it {thing} is
the ultimate root node. {thing} is divided up into types of things.
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>
>> When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
>> point out your specific mistake.
>
> But I have conceptually.
>
> Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on
> anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words have
> meaning without being defined by other words.
>
{thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
> There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to stand on
> their own without support from anything in the system.
>
>>
>> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
>> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
>> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
>> deep yet zero actual cycles.
>
> And what makes that definition true?
>
What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
strings.
That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
between types of things in the world and each one does it using
different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>
It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
> You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when you
> then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT system, and
> your problem continues.
>
Not really, even the root of the knowledge tree {thing}
is defined in terms of its constituents.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kbc0$2218$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335567 |
On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 9:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 8:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/14/24 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you consider it a thing, that means that your logic
>>>>>>>> system FAILS by the same problem that killed Naive Set Theory,
>>>>>>>> and in fact, can shpw that ANYTHING is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bzzzTT WRONG ANSWER. Prove there is a centillion ton rainbow
>>>>>>> colored elephant in my living room right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you just defined that your sources of Truth Makers include
>>>>>> EVERY universe that possible exists, then, BY DEFINITION, there
>>>>>> exists a universe where that is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> iff (if and only if) expression of language X is true then some
>>>>> physically existing or conception thing makes X true.
>>>>
>>>> Which forces you into cycles, as either you have cycles, or you have
>>>> a set of "first truths" that are just true of themselves with
>>>> nothing to make them true.
>>>>
>>>> A directed graph (from truth sources to true statements) either has
>>>> cycles or roots, or is just infinite in size.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
>>> about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
>>> acyclic graph.
>>
>> Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a
>> truth-maker coming into them.
>>
>
> When we do this that way that the Cyc project does it {thing} is
> the ultimate root node. {thing} is divided up into types of things.
>
> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
> such relations, etc.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>
>>>
>>> When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
>>> point out your specific mistake.
>>
>> But I have conceptually.
>>
>> Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on
>> anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words
>> have meaning without being defined by other words.
>>
>
> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
And what DEFINES {thing}?
and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from OUTSIDE
the system.
>
>> There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to stand
>> on their own without support from anything in the system.
>>
>>>
>>> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
>>> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
>>> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
>>> deep yet zero actual cycles.
>>
>> And what makes that definition true?
>>
>
> What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
Because we have defined the terms that way.
>
> The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
> between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
> strings.
And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.
>
> That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
> between types of things in the world and each one does it using
> different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
And Human Languages have circular definitions for words, thus you can
not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set of first
concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean, and express
these definitions as loops within the language.
These words have no "truth-makers"
>
>> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>>
>
> It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
> to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate
between the sub-concepts off of {thing}
Only by using information from OUTSIDE the system.
>
>> You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when
>> you then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT
>> system, and your problem continues.
>>
>
> Not really, even the root of the knowledge tree {thing}
> is defined in terms of its constituents.
>
>
So, if those constituents are in the system, we have a circular
definition, and if outside, it isn't a self-sufficient system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kcn5$3h3iu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335573 |
On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 9:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
>>>> about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
>>>> acyclic graph.
>>>
>>> Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a
>>> truth-maker coming into them.
>>>
>>
>> When we do this that way that the Cyc project does it {thing} is
>> the ultimate root node. {thing} is divided up into types of things.
>>
>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
>> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
>> such relations, etc.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>
>>>>
>>>> When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
>>>> point out your specific mistake.
>>>
>>> But I have conceptually.
>>>
>>> Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on
>>> anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words
>>> have meaning without being defined by other words.
>>>
>>
>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>
> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>
Its constituents.
> and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
>
Their placement in the inheritance hierarchy.
> All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from OUTSIDE
> the system.
>
The accurate verbal model of the actual world encoded in
something like simple type theory.
>>
>>> There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to stand
>>> on their own without support from anything in the system.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
>>>> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
>>>> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
>>>> deep yet zero actual cycles.
>>>
>>> And what makes that definition true?
>>>
>>
>> What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
>
> Because we have defined the terms that way.
>
Yes, you are starting to get this.
Fifteen story office buildings never wag their tail.
>>
>> The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
>> between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
>> strings.
>
> And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.
>
The verified fact that puppies really do wag their tails
is the truthmaker for {puppies wag their tails}.
>>
>> That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
>> between types of things in the world and each one does it using
>> different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
>
> And Human Languages have circular definitions for words,
No you are wrong.
Provide a counter-example.
it is always a type hierarchy.
> thus you can
> not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set of first
> concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean, and express
> these definitions as loops within the language.
>
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
This can be further simplified to types of relations between
finite strings.
> These words have no "truth-makers"
>
Incorrect.
>>
>>> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>>>
>>
>> It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
>> to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
>
> and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate
> between the sub-concepts off of {thing}
>
{Thing} is the root and is defined by itself constituents types of things.
> Only by using information from OUTSIDE the system.
>
Not at all.
>>
>>> You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when
>>> you then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT
>>> system, and your problem continues.
>>>
>>
>> Not really, even the root of the knowledge tree {thing}
>> is defined in terms of its constituents.
>>
>>
>
> So, if those constituents are in the system, we have a circular
> definition, and if outside, it isn't a self-sufficient system.
A type hierarchy definitely does not have any cycles.
Most all of human knowledge that can be expressed using
language can be fully encoded as relations between finite
strings in a type hierarchy.
Some knowledge requires specifying a sequence of procedural
steps. This requires sequence, selection and iteration.
The Cyc project uses GUIDs in place of finite strings.
This makes their system generic to all human knowledge.
I am sorry to say that Doug Lenat died last year.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kdcc$2218$18@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335577 |
On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 9:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No you are wrong about this. The first thing that I discovered
>>>>> about this at least twenty years ago is that it is always an
>>>>> acyclic graph.
>>>>
>>>> Which means there is always a set of root nodes that do not have a
>>>> truth-maker coming into them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we do this that way that the Cyc project does it {thing} is
>>> the ultimate root node. {thing} is divided up into types of things.
>>>
>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>>> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
>>> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
>>> such relations, etc.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you try to come up with a concrete counter-example I will
>>>>> point out your specific mistake.
>>>>
>>>> But I have conceptually.
>>>>
>>>> Show me a root concept, that has a truth-maker but doesn't depend on
>>>> anything else. If you use words to describe it, how do those words
>>>> have meaning without being defined by other words.
>>>>
>>>
>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>
>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>
>
> Its constituents.
In other words, the definition is circular.
>
>> and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
>>
> Their placement in the inheritance hierarchy.
So, what distinguishes the first thing derived from thing from the
second? Only what derives from them, in that case, again, your
definitions are circular.
>
>> All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from
>> OUTSIDE the system.
>>
>
> The accurate verbal model of the actual world encoded in
> something like simple type theory.
In other words, you are just ADMITTING, that everything in the model
gets its "meaning" from EMPRICAL TRUTH as looking at the actual world,
and derives from meaning from the "poorly defined" natural languages of
that world.
So, NOTHING in that system has truth-makers in the system, and NOTHING
is actually "analytically true" as everything fundamentally devolse to
an empirical truth.
>
>>>
>>>> There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to
>>>> stand on their own without support from anything in the system.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
>>>>> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
>>>>> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
>>>>> deep yet zero actual cycles.
>>>>
>>>> And what makes that definition true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
>>
>> Because we have defined the terms that way.
>>
> Yes, you are starting to get this.
> Fifteen story office buildings never wag their tail.
But there is not fundamental truth-maker to establish any of this.
>
>>>
>>> The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
>>> between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
>>> strings.
>>
>> And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.
>>
> The verified fact that puppies really do wag their tails
> is the truthmaker for {puppies wag their tails}.
In other words, your whole system is just based on emperical truth, and
analytical truth doesn't actually exist.
>
>>>
>>> That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
>>> between types of things in the world and each one does it using
>>> different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
>>
>> And Human Languages have circular definitions for words,
>
> No you are wrong.
> Provide a counter-example.
> it is always a type hierarchy.
Show me a word that isn't defined from other words, in other words, show
me a root.
A tree with a root must either be infinite in depth or have cycles.
>
>> thus you can not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set
>> of first concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean,
>> and express these definitions as loops within the language.
>>
> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
> such relations, etc.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>
> This can be further simplified to types of relations between
> finite strings.
And ultimately needs to rely on things not established by Truth-Makers
in the system.
>
>> These words have no "truth-makers"
>>
> Incorrect.
So, what are they?
>
>>>
>>>> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
>>> to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
>>
>> and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate
>> between the sub-concepts off of {thing}
>>
> {Thing} is the root and is defined by itself constituents types of things.
So, it is either defined based on the ENGLISH sentence, and thus we pull
enough of English into the system to define it, and get into the cycles
of English, or
it is defined in terms of things that definie themselves on {Thing} and
thus is circularly defined.
>
>> Only by using information from OUTSIDE the system.
>>
> Not at all.
Then you have cycles.
>
>>>
>>>> You ALWAYS need to reference something outside your system, and when
>>>> you then include that source, you need to find the root of THAT
>>>> system, and your problem continues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not really, even the root of the knowledge tree {thing}
>>> is defined in terms of its constituents.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, if those constituents are in the system, we have a circular
>> definition, and if outside, it isn't a self-sufficient system.
>
> A type hierarchy definitely does not have any cycles.
> Most all of human knowledge that can be expressed using
> language can be fully encoded as relations between finite
> strings in a type hierarchy.
And doesn't have definitions in the system of its roots.
>
> Some knowledge requires specifying a sequence of procedural
> steps. This requires sequence, selection and iteration.
And thus need definitions from outside the system, or cycles.
>
> The Cyc project uses GUIDs in place of finite strings.
> This makes their system generic to all human knowledge.
> I am sorry to say that Doug Lenat died last year.
>
But the definitions still need to either rely on cycles or things
outside the system, or just remain undefined.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kefm$3h3iu$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335578 |
On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>
>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>
>>
>> Its constituents.
>
> In other words, the definition is circular.
>
If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
discussion.
>>
>>> and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
>>>
>> Their placement in the inheritance hierarchy.
>
> So, what distinguishes the first thing derived from thing from the
> second? Only what derives from them, in that case, again, your
> definitions are circular.
>
If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
discussion.
>>
>>> All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from
>>> OUTSIDE the system.
>>>
>>
>> The accurate verbal model of the actual world encoded in
>> something like simple type theory.
>
> In other words, you are just ADMITTING, that everything in the model
> gets its "meaning" from EMPRICAL TRUTH as looking at the actual world,
> and derives from meaning from the "poorly defined" natural languages of
> that world.
>
Not at all.
> So, NOTHING in that system has truth-makers in the system, and NOTHING
> is actually "analytically true" as everything fundamentally devolse to
> an empirical truth.
>
An accurate verbal model of the actual world does specify
all of the knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to
>>>>> stand on their own without support from anything in the system.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
>>>>>> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
>>>>>> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
>>>>>> deep yet zero actual cycles.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what makes that definition true?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
>>>
>>> Because we have defined the terms that way.
>>>
>> Yes, you are starting to get this.
>> Fifteen story office buildings never wag their tail.
>
> But there is not fundamental truth-maker to establish any of this.
>
It is all semantic interconnections specified as something like
a type hierarchy.
>>
>>>>
>>>> The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
>>>> between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
>>>> strings.
>>>
>>> And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.
>>>
>> The verified fact that puppies really do wag their tails
>> is the truthmaker for {puppies wag their tails}.
>
> In other words, your whole system is just based on emperical truth, and
> analytical truth doesn't actually exist.
>
Right there really is no such thing as words thus you
never really said that.
>>
>>>>
>>>> That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
>>>> between types of things in the world and each one does it using
>>>> different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
>>>
>>> And Human Languages have circular definitions for words,
>>
>> No you are wrong.
>> Provide a counter-example.
>> it is always a type hierarchy.
>
> Show me a word that isn't defined from other words, in other words, show
> me a root.
>
> A tree with a root must either be infinite in depth or have cycles.
>
No and you cannot show otherwise.
Willard Van Orman Quine got totally confused by this and got
most everyone else to follow his inept reasoning.
He had no idea how the definition of bachelor(x) and ~Married(x)
could be defined in a non-circular way.
(a) first define human
(b) next defined married
(c) next define bachelor as ~married.
>>
>>> thus you can not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set
>>> of first concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean,
>>> and express these definitions as loops within the language.
>>>
>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
>> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties
>> of such relations, etc.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>
>> This can be further simplified to types of relations between
>> finite strings.
>
> And ultimately needs to rely on things not established by Truth-Makers
> in the system.
>
The definitions of terms specified as relations between other terms
are the truthmakers for these terms.
>>
>>> These words have no "truth-makers"
>>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> So, what are they?
>
Semantic gibberish just like "this sentence is not true".
>>
>>>>
>>>>> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
>>>> to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
>>>
>>> and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate
>>> between the sub-concepts off of {thing}
>>>
>> {Thing} is the root and is defined by itself constituents types of
>> things.
>
> So, it is either defined based on the ENGLISH sentence, and thus we pull
> enough of English into the system to define it, and get into the cycles
> of English, or
>
THERE ARE NO CYCLES IN A TYPE HIERARCHY.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kf8g$2219$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335581 |
On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>
>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its constituents.
>>
>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>
>
> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
> discussion.
But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular
defintions or terms outside your system.
>
>>>
>>>> and what distingueshes the things derived from {thing}
>>>>
>>> Their placement in the inheritance hierarchy.
>>
>> So, what distinguishes the first thing derived from thing from the
>> second? Only what derives from them, in that case, again, your
>> definitions are circular.
>>
>
> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
> discussion.
And without definitions for the "types", it is just a meaningless tree
of undefined terms. But then, that somehow seems normal for you systems,
you throw out terms you don't understand and see what sticks to the
wall, which results in a zero-knowledge/truth system.
>
>>>
>>>> All these need definitions (what are part of truth=making) from
>>>> OUTSIDE the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The accurate verbal model of the actual world encoded in
>>> something like simple type theory.
>>
>> In other words, you are just ADMITTING, that everything in the model
>> gets its "meaning" from EMPRICAL TRUTH as looking at the actual world,
>> and derives from meaning from the "poorly defined" natural languages
>> of that world.
>>
>
> Not at all.
Sure seems like it.
>
>> So, NOTHING in that system has truth-makers in the system, and NOTHING
>> is actually "analytically true" as everything fundamentally devolse to
>> an empirical truth.
>>
>
> An accurate verbal model of the actual world does specify
> all of the knowledge that can be expressed using language.
And the word definitions of natural language are circular.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a fundamental problem of first principles that need to
>>>>>> stand on their own without support from anything in the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition of the meaning of a term is the truthmaker
>>>>>>> for this term. The terms that this definition is composed
>>>>>>> of have their own definitions. This is recursively quite
>>>>>>> deep yet zero actual cycles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what makes that definition true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes puppies not a type of fifteen story office building?
>>>>
>>>> Because we have defined the terms that way.
>>>>
>>> Yes, you are starting to get this.
>>> Fifteen story office buildings never wag their tail.
>>
>> But there is not fundamental truth-maker to establish any of this.
>>
>
> It is all semantic interconnections specified as something like
> a type hierarchy.
Excpet that definitions become circular or reference out of system
definitions.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct verbal model of the actual world encodes relations
>>>>> between types of things as stipulated relations between finite
>>>>> strings.
>>>>
>>>> And stipulations don't have truth makers in the system.
>>>>
>>> The verified fact that puppies really do wag their tails
>>> is the truthmaker for {puppies wag their tails}.
>>
>> In other words, your whole system is just based on emperical truth,
>> and analytical truth doesn't actually exist.
>>
>
> Right there really is no such thing as words thus you
> never really said that.
But you seem to be using the Natural Language meaning of the words,
which are just "Emperical" as they are based on truths that are observed
and not analytically defined. The "Natural" part of Natural Language
means that it is as found in "Nature", i.e. the real world. Ultimately,
the Natural Language meaning of the word "Cat" relies on the observation
and sense data of how that word is used in reality. We might then
formalize it some, but the core meanings of Natural Language are learned
experimentally, not logically.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That we have many human languages that encode the same relations
>>>>> between types of things in the world and each one does it using
>>>>> different finite strings proves the stipulated aspect of this.
>>>>
>>>> And Human Languages have circular definitions for words,
>>>
>>> No you are wrong.
>>> Provide a counter-example.
>>> it is always a type hierarchy.
>>
>> Show me a word that isn't defined from other words, in other words,
>> show me a root.
>>
>> A tree with a root must either be infinite in depth or have cycles.
>>
>
> No and you cannot show otherwise.
> Willard Van Orman Quine got totally confused by this and got
> most everyone else to follow his inept reasoning.
Try to show one that doesn't
>
> He had no idea how the definition of bachelor(x) and ~Married(x)
> could be defined in a non-circular way.
>
> (a) first define human
> (b) next defined married
> (c) next define bachelor as ~married.
Except that ISN'T the definition of "bachelor", as he points out, it has
many meanings. So, your argument is based on a LIE.
>
>>>
>>>> thus you can not trace them to a "root". We need to start with a set
>>>> of first concepts that we agree OUTSIDE OF LANGUAGE what they mean,
>>>> and express these definitions as loops within the language.
>>>>
>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>>> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
>>> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties
>>> of such relations, etc.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>
>>> This can be further simplified to types of relations between
>>> finite strings.
>>
>> And ultimately needs to rely on things not established by Truth-Makers
>> in the system.
>>
>
> The definitions of terms specified as relations between other terms
> are the truthmakers for these terms.
And those definitions need truth-makers, as language is circular or
out-side refering.
>
>>>
>>>> These words have no "truth-makers"
>>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> So, what are they?
>>
>
> Semantic gibberish just like "this sentence is not true".
In other words, you are ADMITTING that the word you use don't actually
have meaning, so there is not truth-makers for them.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How can you write a "defintion" for the first term of your system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the same sort of knowledge tree that the Cyc project uses
>>>>> to encode an accurate verbal model of the actual world.
>>>>
>>>> and, as I asked, how do they actually DEFINE {thing} or diferentiate
>>>> between the sub-concepts off of {thing}
>>>>
>>> {Thing} is the root and is defined by itself constituents types of
>>> things.
>>
>> So, it is either defined based on the ENGLISH sentence, and thus we
>> pull enough of English into the system to define it, and get into the
>> cycles of English, or
>>
> THERE ARE NO CYCLES IN A TYPE HIERARCHY.
>
But there is in the definition of the terms.
Without defintions, the hierarchy is just gibberish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kflr$3hugj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335586 |
On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its constituents.
>>>
>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>
>>
>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>> discussion.
>
> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>
> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular
> defintions or terms outside your system.
>
Prove that.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kg3f$2218$20@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335589 |
On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>> discussion.
>>
>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>>
>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular
>> defintions or terms outside your system.
>>
>
> Prove that.
>
Try to show me one that does.
The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. If
you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get circular.
Otherwise, to get something to define it with, you need to go out of system.
The problem you are running into is that normally, we just define a
system based on the inital facts based on out of system definitions and
go on, and sort of forget that dependency.
But then if you want to try to claim that EVERYTHING in the system has a
truth-maker in the system, you run into the problem that those terms do not.
The "primative truth-makers" of the system just are truth-makers, but do
not HAVE truth-makers of their own.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kgop$3hugj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335591 |
On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>>>
>>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular
>>> defintions or terms outside your system.
>>>
>>
>> Prove that.
>>
>
> Try to show me one that does.
>
Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
of this claim or retract it.
> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. If
> you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get circular.
>
*IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
and specifies additional properties that only apply to
the animal sub-type of living thing.
{Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
{Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4khir$2219$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335593 |
On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either
>>>> circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Prove that.
>>>
>>
>> Try to show me one that does.
>>
>
> Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
> of this claim or retract it.
I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
I have demonstrated the reasoning.
That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says
that no such thing can exist.
>
>> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. If
>> you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get circular.
>>
> *IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>
> Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
> and specifies additional properties that only apply to
> the animal sub-type of living thing.
And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>
> {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
> {Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>
>
And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically existing
things}
I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms of a
collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a circular
definition or you end up with the same problem at the leaves, but many
more of them) or you define it with refernce to concepts OUTSIDE the
hierarchy being built, by an Emperical reference to the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4ki8q$3ib3p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335595 |
On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>>>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either
>>>>> circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try to show me one that does.
>>>
>>
>> Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
>> of this claim or retract it.
>
> I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>
> I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>
> That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says
> that no such thing can exist.
>
>>
>>> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. If
>>> you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get circular.
>>>
>> *IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
>
> But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
>
> I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>
> That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>
>>
>> Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
>> and specifies additional properties that only apply to
>> the animal sub-type of living thing.
>
> And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>
>>
>> {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
>> {Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>
>>
>
> And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically existing
> things}
>
It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
a time thus never actually circular.
The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
until is reaches the node where it stops.
What are your parent types?
What are your child types?
> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>
> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>
> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms of a
> collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a circular
> definition
So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
and the cells are comprised of dog?
Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
> or you end up with the same problem at the leaves, but many
> more of them) or you define it with refernce to concepts OUTSIDE the
> hierarchy being built, by an Emperical reference to the real world.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kim5$2219$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335596 |
On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>>>>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either
>>>>>> circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to show me one that does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
>>> of this claim or retract it.
>>
>> I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>>
>> I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>>
>> That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says
>> that no such thing can exist.
>>
>>>
>>>> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms.
>>>> If you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get
>>>> circular.
>>>>
>>> *IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
>>
>> But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
>>
>> I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>>
>> That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>>
>>>
>>> Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
>>> and specifies additional properties that only apply to
>>> the animal sub-type of living thing.
>>
>> And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>>
>>>
>>> {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>> {Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically
>> existing things}
>>
>
> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
> a time thus never actually circular.
The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
That is a CYCLE
To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
thing} which then traces to {Thing}
Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>
> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>
> What are your parent types?
> What are your child types?
But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all your
arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically existing
thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>
>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>
>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>
>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms of
>> a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a circular
>> definition
>
> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>
> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
Where did ANYTHING actually get MEANING for what it is.
It seems your whole logic is just make-beleive.
>
>> or you end up with the same problem at the leaves, but many more of
>> them) or you define it with refernce to concepts OUTSIDE the hierarchy
>> being built, by an Emperical reference to the real world.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kj9m$3iid3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335598 |
On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>>>>>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either
>>>>>>> circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show me one that does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
>>>> of this claim or retract it.
>>>
>>> I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>>>
>>> I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>>>
>>> That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says
>>> that no such thing can exist.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms.
>>>>> If you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get
>>>>> circular.
>>>>>
>>>> *IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
>>>
>>> But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
>>>
>>> I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>>>
>>> That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
>>>> and specifies additional properties that only apply to
>>>> the animal sub-type of living thing.
>>>
>>> And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>> {Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically
>>> existing things}
>>>
>>
>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>> a time thus never actually circular.
>
> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>
> That is a CYCLE
>
Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
recursive depth.
*NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
> thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>
> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>
>>
>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>
>> What are your parent types?
>> What are your child types?
>
> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all your
> arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically existing
> thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>
>>
>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>
>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>
>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms of
>>> a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a circular
>>> definition
>>
>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>
>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>
> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
The above can be simplified to different types of relations
between types thus fully defining every term.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kjod$2218$22@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335599 |
On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what DEFINES {thing}?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Its constituents.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, the definition is circular.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
>>>>>>>>> then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type
>>>>>>>> hierarchy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either
>>>>>>>> circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to show me one that does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
>>>>> of this claim or retract it.
>>>>
>>>> I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>>>>
>>>> I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says
>>>> that no such thing can exist.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms.
>>>>>> If you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get
>>>>>> circular.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
>>>>
>>>> But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something
>>>> outside.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
>>>>> and specifies additional properties that only apply to
>>>>> the animal sub-type of living thing.
>>>>
>>>> And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> {Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>>> {Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically
>>>> existing things}
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>
>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>
>> That is a CYCLE
>>
>
> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
From what?
> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if its
only definition is its relationships.
> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
> recursive depth.
>
> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your eyes
to the truth.
>
>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
>> thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>
>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>
>>>
>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>
>>> What are your parent types?
>>> What are your child types?
>>
>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all
>> your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically
>> existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>
>>>
>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>
>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms
>>>> of a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a
>>>> circular definition
>>>
>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>>
>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>>
>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>>
>
> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of
> such relations, etc.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>
> The above can be simplified to different types of relations
> between types thus fully defining every term.
>
And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means nothing.
It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense items
like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you nothing
about what you want to know.
YOu just don't seem to understand the nature of needing to know things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kl14$3ircc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335601 |
On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>>
>>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>>
>>> That is a CYCLE
>>>
>>
>> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
>
> From what?
>
>> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
>
> Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if its
> only definition is its relationships.
>
The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
to a finite recursive depth.
>> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
>> recursive depth.
>>
>> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
>
> Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your eyes
> to the truth.
>
When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.
>>
>>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
>>> thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>>
>>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>>
>>>> What are your parent types?
>>>> What are your child types?
>>>
>>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all
>>> your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically
>>> existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>>
>>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms
>>>>> of a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a
>>>>> circular definition
>>>>
>>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>>>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>>>
>>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>>>
>>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>>>
>>
>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
>> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties
>> of such relations, etc.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>
>> The above can be simplified to different types of relations
>> between types thus fully defining every term.
>>
> And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means nothing.
>
There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything
else is explicitly defined.
> It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense items
> like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you nothing
> about what you want to know.
>
>
The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works
just fine.
> YOu just don't seem to understand the nature of needing to know things.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4klf7$2219$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335602 |
On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>>>
>>>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>>>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>>>
>>>> That is a CYCLE
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
>>
>> From what?
>>
>>> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
>>
>> Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if
>> its only definition is its relationships.
>>
>
> The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
> to a finite recursive depth.
No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
You seem to like wrong questions.
>
>>> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
>>> recursive depth.
>>>
>>> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
>>
>> Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your
>> eyes to the truth.
>>
>
> When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
> of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
> clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.
Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>
>>>
>>>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
>>>> thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>>>
>>>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your parent types?
>>>>> What are your child types?
>>>>
>>>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all
>>>> your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically
>>>> existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms
>>>>>> of a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you a
>>>>>> circular definition
>>>>>
>>>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>>>>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>>> objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals,
>>> properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties
>>> of such relations, etc.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>
>>> The above can be simplified to different types of relations
>>> between types thus fully defining every term.
>>>
>> And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means
>> nothing.
>>
>
> There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything
> else is explicitly defined.
And how are the nodes defined? WITHIN THE SYSTEM
>
>> It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense items
>> like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you
>> nothing about what you want to know.
>>
>>
>
> The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works
> just fine.
That tells us which of several meanings to use, but not what those
meanings actually mean.
>
>> YOu just don't seem to understand the nature of needing to know things.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4kp9p$3jfm0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335604 |
On 6/15/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>>>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>>>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a CYCLE
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
>>>
>>> From what?
>>>
>>>> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
>>>
>>> Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if
>>> its only definition is its relationships.
>>>
>>
>> The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
>> to a finite recursive depth.
>
> No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
>
Of course everyone can see that these two identical questions
have NOTHING to do with each other:
"What is a {thing}?"
"What is a {thing}?"
> You seem to like wrong questions.
>
You seems to deny the identity principle.
>>
>>>> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
>>>> recursive depth.
>>>>
>>>> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
>>>
>>> Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your
>>> eyes to the truth.
>>>
>>
>> When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
>> of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
>> clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.
>
> Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>
That you can't point to any specific gaps in my reasoning proves
that you only have baseless rhetoric. I think that we established
that my IQ is higher than yours haven't we? I forget.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
>>>>> thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>>>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are your parent types?
>>>>>> What are your child types?
>>>>>
>>>>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all
>>>>> your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically
>>>>> existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in
>>>>>>> terms of a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you
>>>>>>> a circular definition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>>>>>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that
>>>> the objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely:
>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between
>>>> individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>>
>>>> The above can be simplified to different types of relations
>>>> between types thus fully defining every term.
>>>>
>>> And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means
>>> nothing.
>>>
>>
>> There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything
>> else is explicitly defined.
>
> And how are the nodes defined? WITHIN THE SYSTEM
>
There are nodes that have unique GUIDs.
There are types of paths that have unique GUIDs for each path type.
There are connections between nodes using paths.
That <is> the essence of the
Cyc knowledge ontology / simple type hierarchy.
>>
>>> It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense
>>> items like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you
>>> nothing about what you want to know.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works
>> just fine.
>
> That tells us which of several meanings to use, but not what those
> meanings actually mean.
>
Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4l6q6$3n5d$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335606 |
On 6/15/24 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>>>>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>>>>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a CYCLE
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
>>>>
>>>> From what?
>>>>
>>>>> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if
>>>> its only definition is its relationships.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
>>> to a finite recursive depth.
>>
>> No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
>>
>
> Of course everyone can see that these two identical questions
> have NOTHING to do with each other:
>
> "What is a {thing}?"
> "What is a {thing}?"
So, where do you get the anser?
Note, it is "what is a {thing}?" and NOT "what are the children of {thing}?"
>
>> You seem to like wrong questions.
>>
>
> You seems to deny the identity principle.
>
>>>
>>>>> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
>>>>> recursive depth.
>>>>>
>>>>> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
>>>>
>>>> Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your
>>>> eyes to the truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
>>> of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
>>> clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.
>>
>> Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>>
>
> That you can't point to any specific gaps in my reasoning proves
> that you only have baseless rhetoric. I think that we established
> that my IQ is higher than yours haven't we? I forget.
>
I Have.
You don't understand.
An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing
>>>>>> thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>>>>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are your parent types?
>>>>>>> What are your child types?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all
>>>>>> your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically
>>>>>> existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in
>>>>>>>> terms of a collection of all its sub-componets (which gives you
>>>>>>>> a circular definition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
>>>>>>> and the cells are comprised of dog?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that
>>>>> the objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely:
>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between
>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>>>
>>>>> The above can be simplified to different types of relations
>>>>> between types thus fully defining every term.
>>>>>
>>>> And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means
>>>> nothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything
>>> else is explicitly defined.
>>
>> And how are the nodes defined? WITHIN THE SYSTEM
>>
>
> There are nodes that have unique GUIDs.
Having a GUID does not assign meaning to the node, it makes it unique.
> There are types of paths that have unique GUIDs for each path type.
> There are connections between nodes using paths.
Which says we can establish specific paths, but doesn't assign MEANING
to the node.
>
> That <is> the essence of the
> Cyc knowledge ontology / simple type hierarchy.
So, it seems, by YOUR description, Cyc knowledge ontology doesn't
actually know the meaning of anything in its database,
>
>>>
>>>> It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense
>>>> items like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells
>>>> you nothing about what you want to know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works
>>> just fine.
>>
>> That tells us which of several meanings to use, but not what those
>> meanings actually mean.
>>
>
> Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID.
>
Which doesn't mean it has a meaning. It has a spot for a unique meaning.
We can build definitions of words in the tree from other words, but
those definitions will form a cycle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web