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 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4l83h$3m8b0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335609 |
On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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}?"
>
The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>
>>
>>> 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 have not.
> You don't understand.
>
> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>
Do you even remember that conversation?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
The meaning is specified by the connection to other
nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
words.
>> 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.
>
When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.
>>
>> 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.
If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
would also have a cycle.
--
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 19:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4l9ea$3n5d$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335611 |
On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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}?"
>>
>
> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>
HOW?
All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child
relationship between terms.
If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING
about the actual meaning of the words.
I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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 have not.
>
>> You don't understand.
>>
>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>
>
> Do you even remember that conversation?
You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
You said it was impossible.
Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is not
that high.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> The meaning is specified by the connection to other
> nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
> with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
> get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
> words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
> words.
Nope, that can't establish full meaning.
Note, the dictionary you just references assigns a DEFINITION to each
meaning, and that DEFINITION is what defines the meaning. The issue is
that the words in the definition need to be defined in order to use used
in the definition, and if you don't establish a set of "first words"
that you assume can understand their meaning without needing to look at
there definitions, you just get caught is cycles.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
> swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
> GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.
No, you need to include the SENSE MEANINGS attached to each of those
words, and that forms a definition graph that WILL have cycles. If you
are carefull, you may be able to establish a reasonably small set of
"first words" that you will allow to be used in defintions without
needing to push into their definitions, and build a rooted directed
graph from those.
But, just like with Truth-makers, you need to have a base of words that
don't need definitions to be understood to build that. You often still
attach defintions to refine the meaning, but the idea is that you can
start with the "first words" understanding and as you build up the set
of words you consider you understand, you can then begin later rounds to
refine the meanings.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
> would also have a cycle.
>
They Do.
Find a word that doesn't use words to define its sense meaning. If there
is no "first word" then there must be a cycle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4lc8n$3n4dj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335615 |
On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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}?"
>>>
>>
>> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
>> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
>> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>>
>
> HOW?
>
> All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child
> relationship between terms.
>
> If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING
> about the actual meaning of the words.
>
> I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>
I guess that you can't begin to understand this
without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 have not.
>>
>>> You don't understand.
>>>
>>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>
>>
>> Do you even remember that conversation?
>
> You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
>
> You said it was impossible.
>
I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.
>
> Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is not
> that high.
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The meaning is specified by the connection to other
>> nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
>> with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
>> get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
>> words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
>> words.
>
> Nope, that can't establish full meaning.
>
It was not meant to. It merely showed exactly how GUIDs
can be swapped for word sense meanings retaining ALL of
the original meaning.
> Note, the dictionary you just references assigns a DEFINITION to each
> meaning, and that DEFINITION is what defines the meaning. The issue is
> that the words in the definition need to be defined in order to use used
> in the definition, and if you don't establish a set of "first words"
> that you assume can understand their meaning without needing to look at
> there definitions, you just get caught is cycles.
>
I guess a knowledge tree is simply over your head.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
>> swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
>> GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.
>
> No, you need to include the SENSE MEANINGS attached to each of those
> words, and that forms a definition graph that WILL have cycles.
English is a little sloppy in that is has some
identical sense meanings across different words.
The knowledge ontology gets rid of these duplicates.
Give me a concrete example of an actual cycle.
> If you
> are carefull, you may be able to establish a reasonably small set of
> "first words" that you will allow to be used in defintions without
> needing to push into their definitions, and build a rooted directed
> graph from those.
>
There are no first words.
> But, just like with Truth-makers, you need to have a base of words that
> don't need definitions to be understood to build that.
No you do not. Simply build the whole tree on the basis
of all of the meanings that exist.
{cow} <is a> {animal} establishes the <is a> relation
between a pair of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
> You often still
> attach defintions to refine the meaning, but the idea is that you can
> start with the "first words" understanding and as you build up the set
> of words you consider you understand, you can then begin later rounds to
> refine the meanings.
>
{thing} is the root of the knowledge tree.
It is completely meaningless until its children
are defined.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
>> would also have a cycle.
>>
>
> They Do.
>
dogma counts for less than nothing.
> Find a word that doesn't use words to define its sense meaning. If there
> is no "first word" then there must be a cycle.
--
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 21:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4le45$3n5d$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335619 |
On 6/15/24 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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}?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
>>> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
>>> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> HOW?
>>
>> All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child
>> relationship between terms.
>>
>> If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING
>> about the actual meaning of the words.
>>
>> I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>>
>
> I guess that you can't begin to understand this
> without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.
I understand them, and the graph itself gives you the
interrelationships, but you still need to assign meaning to the terms or
some form of linkage of the nodes in the graph to the thing they are
supposed to represent.
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 have not.
>>>
>>>> You don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even remember that conversation?
>>
>> You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
>>
>> You said it was impossible.
>>
>
> I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
> meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
> You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.
Which just shows your stupidity, as MIT doesn't HAVE a BSCS degree.
And, I would put it as YOU don't understand material that is fundamental
to the field.
>
>>
>> Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is
>> not that high.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The meaning is specified by the connection to other
>>> nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
>>> with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
>>> get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
>>> words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
>>> words.
>>
>> Nope, that can't establish full meaning.
>>
>
> It was not meant to. It merely showed exactly how GUIDs
> can be swapped for word sense meanings retaining ALL of
> the original meaning.
No, it swaps for the NUMBERING of the word sense meanings. The entries
still need their defintions, and that is where you have the problems.
You keep on sidetracking yourself on side issues.
>
>> Note, the dictionary you just references assigns a DEFINITION to each
>> meaning, and that DEFINITION is what defines the meaning. The issue is
>> that the words in the definition need to be defined in order to use
>> used in the definition, and if you don't establish a set of "first
>> words" that you assume can understand their meaning without needing to
>> look at there definitions, you just get caught is cycles.
>>
>
> I guess a knowledge tree is simply over your head.
Nope, but the tree only shows the relationships between the nodes.
Unless the nodes are somehow attached to meaning, they don't relate to
actual knowledge.
But then, that is a fact that is largely just assumed, and not talked
about, as knowledge trees aren't designed as a defintional tree, but as
an interaction tree. Given this, what comes out of it.
>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
>>> swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
>>> GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.
>>
>> No, you need to include the SENSE MEANINGS attached to each of those
>> words, and that forms a definition graph that WILL have cycles.
>
> English is a little sloppy in that is has some
> identical sense meanings across different words.
> The knowledge ontology gets rid of these duplicates.
You still don't understand
I guess you just don't understand what a DEFINITION is.
>
> Give me a concrete example of an actual cycle.
an oak tree is a tree that produces acorns
an acorns is the nut of an oak tree.
>
>> If you are carefull, you may be able to establish a reasonably small
>> set of "first words" that you will allow to be used in defintions
>> without needing to push into their definitions, and build a rooted
>> directed graph from those.
>>
>
> There are no first words.
Then there are just infinite cycles of meaning.
>
>> But, just like with Truth-makers, you need to have a base of words
>> that don't need definitions to be understood to build that.
>
> No you do not. Simply build the whole tree on the basis
> of all of the meanings that exist.
But it isn't a tree, it is a graph, a graph with cycles, unless you have
some first words.
>
> {cow} <is a> {animal} establishes the <is a> relation
> between a pair of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
And if that is all we know, then that {cow} might be a cat, or if we
don't have some defintion for {animal} we might think {animal} could be
a building, and think that a {cow} could be a fire station.
You need likes between the {term} and the sort of objects they represet
or you don't know what anything is. The tree lets you know the
relaitonshop between the things we have identified.
>
>> You often still attach defintions to refine the meaning, but the idea
>> is that you can start with the "first words" understanding and as you
>> build up the set of words you consider you understand, you can then
>> begin later rounds to refine the meanings.
>>
>
> {thing} is the root of the knowledge tree.
> It is completely meaningless until its children
> are defined.
And even when you define the terms for its children, you still don't
know of something you have is actauly a {thing} or not, or which of the
childern terms it might be.
EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to
conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
>>> would also have a cycle.
>>>
>>
>> They Do.
>>
>
> dogma counts for less than nothing.
Show me a word that is a word that could be the root of the definition
tree, that means it can not depend on the meaning of ANY other word, or
those words would need to be lower than it on the meaning tree.
Dogma IS CORRECT is fields with actual authorities.
>
>> Find a word that doesn't use words to define its sense meaning. If
>> there is no "first word" then there must be a cycle.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4lgq9$3rfk3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335622 |
On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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}?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
>>>> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
>>>> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HOW?
>>>
>>> All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child
>>> relationship between terms.
>>>
>>> If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING
>>> about the actual meaning of the words.
>>>
>>> I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>>>
>>
>> I guess that you can't begin to understand this
>> without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.
>
> I understand them, and the graph itself gives you the
> interrelationships, but you still need to assign meaning to the terms or
> some form of linkage of the nodes in the graph to the thing they are
> supposed to represent.
>
{78ce6fe0-f304-4918-9c6e-852958455689}
<26bc2b12-ff16-4552-a364-8efc2943f1f4>
{f7b78c94-1871-4a8e-85ab-bd2840fa8375}
Would be understood to mean {cat} <is a> {animal}
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 have not.
>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you even remember that conversation?
>>>
>>> You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
>>>
>>> You said it was impossible.
>>>
>>
>> I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
>> meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
>> You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.
>
> Which just shows your stupidity, as MIT doesn't HAVE a BSCS degree.
>
No wonder.
> And, I would put it as YOU don't understand material that is fundamental
> to the field.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is
>>> not that high.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The meaning is specified by the connection to other
>>>> nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
>>>> with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
>>>> get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
>>>> words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
>>>> words.
>>>
>>> Nope, that can't establish full meaning.
>>>
>>
>> It was not meant to. It merely showed exactly how GUIDs
>> can be swapped for word sense meanings retaining ALL of
>> the original meaning.
>
> No, it swaps for the NUMBERING of the word sense meanings. The entries
> still need their defintions, and that is where you have the problems.
>
All of the word sense meanings including those
in the definitions are swapped.
> You keep on sidetracking yourself on side issues.
>
>>
>>> Note, the dictionary you just references assigns a DEFINITION to each
>>> meaning, and that DEFINITION is what defines the meaning. The issue
>>> is that the words in the definition need to be defined in order to
>>> use used in the definition, and if you don't establish a set of
>>> "first words" that you assume can understand their meaning without
>>> needing to look at there definitions, you just get caught is cycles.
>>>
>>
>> I guess a knowledge tree is simply over your head.
>
> Nope, but the tree only shows the relationships between the nodes.
> Unless the nodes are somehow attached to meaning, they don't relate to
> actual knowledge.
>
Yes this is the very very hard part.
If we swap ever word in every text ever written for the
GUID of the word's sense meaning all of the meanings remain.
> But then, that is a fact that is largely just assumed, and not talked
> about, as knowledge trees aren't designed as a defintional tree, but as
> an interaction tree. Given this, what comes out of it.
>
Wrongo and the Cyc project proves otherwise.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
>>>> swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
>>>> GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.
>>>
>>> No, you need to include the SENSE MEANINGS attached to each of those
>>> words, and that forms a definition graph that WILL have cycles.
>>
>> English is a little sloppy in that is has some
>> identical sense meanings across different words.
>> The knowledge ontology gets rid of these duplicates.
>
> You still don't understand
>
> I guess you just don't understand what a DEFINITION is.
>
>>
>> Give me a concrete example of an actual cycle.
>
> an oak tree is a tree that produces acorns
>
> an acorns is the nut of an oak tree.
>
>>
>>> If you are carefull, you may be able to establish a reasonably small
>>> set of "first words" that you will allow to be used in defintions
>>> without needing to push into their definitions, and build a rooted
>>> directed graph from those.
>>>
>>
>> There are no first words.
>
> Then there are just infinite cycles of meaning.
>
>>
>>> But, just like with Truth-makers, you need to have a base of words
>>> that don't need definitions to be understood to build that.
>>
>> No you do not. Simply build the whole tree on the basis
>> of all of the meanings that exist.
>
> But it isn't a tree, it is a graph, a graph with cycles, unless you have
> some first words.
>
Try and make this 100% concrete showing an actual cycle that
already exists in standard dictionaries you are doing far less
than hand waving.
>>
>> {cow} <is a> {animal} establishes the <is a> relation
>> between a pair of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
>
> And if that is all we know, then that {cow} might be a cat, or if we
> don't have some defintion for {animal} we might think {animal} could be
> a building, and think that a {cow} could be a fire station.
>
All we know is the single <is a> relation between otherwise
totally meaningless finite strings until we encode all of the
other relations between otherwise meaningless finite strings
we do not have compete knowledge.
> You need likes between the {term} and the sort of objects they represet
> or you don't know what anything is. The tree lets you know the
> relaitonshop between the things we have identified.
>
Yes.
>>
>>> You often still attach defintions to refine the meaning, but the idea
>>> is that you can start with the "first words" understanding and as you
>>> build up the set of words you consider you understand, you can then
>>> begin later rounds to refine the meanings.
>>>
>>
>> {thing} is the root of the knowledge tree.
>> It is completely meaningless until its children
>> are defined.
>
> And even when you define the terms for its children, you still don't
> know of something you have is actauly a {thing} or not, or which of the
> childern terms it might be.
>
Once the knowledge tree is 100% complete then is has all of
the knowledge that can be expressed using language that any
human mind can possibly know.
> EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to
> conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>
{cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
strings.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
>>>> would also have a cycle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They Do.
>>>
>>
>> dogma counts for less than nothing.
>
> Show me a word that is a word that could be the root of the definition
> tree, that means it can not depend on the meaning of ANY other word, or
> those words would need to be lower than it on the meaning tree.
>
> Dogma IS CORRECT is fields with actual authorities.
>
>>
>>> Find a word that doesn't use words to define its sense meaning. If
>>> there is no "first word" then there must be a cycle.
>>
>
--
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 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4lir8$3n5d$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335627 |
On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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}?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
>>>>> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
>>>>> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HOW?
>>>>
>>>> All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child
>>>> relationship between terms.
>>>>
>>>> If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING
>>>> about the actual meaning of the words.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess that you can't begin to understand this
>>> without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.
>>
>> I understand them, and the graph itself gives you the
>> interrelationships, but you still need to assign meaning to the terms
>> or some form of linkage of the nodes in the graph to the thing they
>> are supposed to represent.
>>
>
> {78ce6fe0-f304-4918-9c6e-852958455689}
> <26bc2b12-ff16-4552-a364-8efc2943f1f4>
> {f7b78c94-1871-4a8e-85ab-bd2840fa8375}
>
> Would be understood to mean {cat} <is a> {animal}
And what connect that {cat}/{78ce6fe0-f304-4918-9c6e-852958455689} to
our normal meaning of the animal cat? as opposed to just the GUID that
specifies a particular sense-choice of a word that has no actual
definitoin of ther than how it relates to all the other nodes that have
no assigned meaning.
>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 have not.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you even remember that conversation?
>>>>
>>>> You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
>>>>
>>>> You said it was impossible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
>>> meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
>>> You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.
>>
>> Which just shows your stupidity, as MIT doesn't HAVE a BSCS degree.
>>
>
> No wonder.
Right, they have a BSEECS degree. People coming out of MIT need to know
a bit about how the computer actually works in addition to how to
program them.
I guess you just don't care to check your facts,. But hten, since
"truth" is a foreign concept to you, so is the idea of "facts"
>
>> And, I would put it as YOU don't understand material that is
>> fundamental to the field.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is
>>>> not that high.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning is specified by the connection to other
>>>>> nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
>>>>> with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
>>>>> get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
>>>>> words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
>>>>> words.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that can't establish full meaning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was not meant to. It merely showed exactly how GUIDs
>>> can be swapped for word sense meanings retaining ALL of
>>> the original meaning.
>>
>> No, it swaps for the NUMBERING of the word sense meanings. The entries
>> still need their defintions, and that is where you have the problems.
>>
>
> All of the word sense meanings including those
> in the definitions are swapped.
So, what is the entry for the definition of a
{cat} / {78ce6fe0-f304-4918-9c6e-852958455689} ?
And, if they do include the definitions, then are they to OUTSIDE terms?
and thus the system isn't self-contained?
>
>> You keep on sidetracking yourself on side issues.
>>
>>>
>>>> Note, the dictionary you just references assigns a DEFINITION to
>>>> each meaning, and that DEFINITION is what defines the meaning. The
>>>> issue is that the words in the definition need to be defined in
>>>> order to use used in the definition, and if you don't establish a
>>>> set of "first words" that you assume can understand their meaning
>>>> without needing to look at there definitions, you just get caught is
>>>> cycles.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess a knowledge tree is simply over your head.
>>
>> Nope, but the tree only shows the relationships between the nodes.
>> Unless the nodes are somehow attached to meaning, they don't relate to
>> actual knowledge.
>>
>
> Yes this is the very very hard part.
> If we swap ever word in every text ever written for the
> GUID of the word's sense meaning all of the meanings remain.
So, your definiton graph is full of loops, as every node is connected
via definitions to other words, so there is no "root" for the definition
tree. And, if we have lost the Outside English meanings, we can't tell
where to look at the system for data about a "cat"
>
>> But then, that is a fact that is largely just assumed, and not talked
>> about, as knowledge trees aren't designed as a defintional tree, but
>> as an interaction tree. Given this, what comes out of it.
>>
>
> Wrongo and the Cyc project proves otherwise.
I suspect you will find that they have preserved the connections from
there terms to Natural Language definitions to allow entry into the tree.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
>>>>> swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
>>>>> GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.
>>>>
>>>> No, you need to include the SENSE MEANINGS attached to each of those
>>>> words, and that forms a definition graph that WILL have cycles.
>>>
>>> English is a little sloppy in that is has some
>>> identical sense meanings across different words.
>>> The knowledge ontology gets rid of these duplicates.
>>
>> You still don't understand
>>
>> I guess you just don't understand what a DEFINITION is.
>>
>>>
>>> Give me a concrete example of an actual cycle.
>>
>> an oak tree is a tree that produces acorns
>>
>> an acorns is the nut of an oak tree.
>>
>>>
>>>> If you are carefull, you may be able to establish a reasonably small
>>>> set of "first words" that you will allow to be used in defintions
>>>> without needing to push into their definitions, and build a rooted
>>>> directed graph from those.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no first words.
>>
>> Then there are just infinite cycles of meaning.
>>
>>>
>>>> But, just like with Truth-makers, you need to have a base of words
>>>> that don't need definitions to be understood to build that.
>>>
>>> No you do not. Simply build the whole tree on the basis
>>> of all of the meanings that exist.
>>
>> But it isn't a tree, it is a graph, a graph with cycles, unless you
>> have some first words.
>>
>
> Try and make this 100% concrete showing an actual cycle that
> already exists in standard dictionaries you are doing far less
> than hand waving.
Oak: A tree that produces acorns.
Acorn: The nut of the oak tree.
If we define the "definition level" of a word to be one more than the
highest definition level of any word used in its defintion that is
needed to understand it, and no word has zero words in its definition
that need to be understood to understand it, then the definition level
of all words is infinite, because all words are above a circular definition.
Simple inductive proof:
There are no words with definition level 0, as we have no words which
don't need any words to understand them (your claim that there are no
first words).
If there are no words with a definition level of N, then there can not
ve any words with a definition level of N+1, as to be of level N+1, it
needs a words to understand it at level N, which we have as a given
there are none.
Thus, There are no words with a definition level of any finite integer,
so all words have an infinite definition level.
>
>>>
>>> {cow} <is a> {animal} establishes the <is a> relation
>>> between a pair of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
>>
>> And if that is all we know, then that {cow} might be a cat, or if we
>> don't have some defintion for {animal} we might think {animal} could
>> be a building, and think that a {cow} could be a fire station.
>>
>
> All we know is the single <is a> relation between otherwise
> totally meaningless finite strings until we encode all of the
> other relations between otherwise meaningless finite strings
> we do not have compete knowledge.
And out of the see of meaningless terms, we can not find a term that
relates to something we want to know.
We can perform the logical inferences in the system, but without the
external links, we have no idea what tha tmeans.
>
>> You need likes between the {term} and the sort of objects they
>> represet or you don't know what anything is. The tree lets you know
>> the relaitonshop between the things we have identified.
>>
>
> Yes.
And thus, none of the terms have their complete Truth-maker set fully in
the system, but also in the links to that outside world.
>
>>>
>>>> You often still attach defintions to refine the meaning, but the
>>>> idea is that you can start with the "first words" understanding and
>>>> as you build up the set of words you consider you understand, you
>>>> can then begin later rounds to refine the meanings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> {thing} is the root of the knowledge tree.
>>> It is completely meaningless until its children
>>> are defined.
>>
>> And even when you define the terms for its children, you still don't
>> know of something you have is actauly a {thing} or not, or which of
>> the childern terms it might be.
>>
>
> Once the knowledge tree is 100% complete then is has all of
> the knowledge that can be expressed using language that any
> human mind can possibly know.
but no connection to the world, unless we included the outside links.
And that means that things in the system have truth-makers outside the
system.
>
>> EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to
>> conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>>
>
> {cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
> for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
> strings.
>
But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it provides
us no knowledge about our actual world.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
>>>>> would also have a cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They Do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> dogma counts for less than nothing.
>>
>> Show me a word that is a word that could be the root of the definition
>> tree, that means it can not depend on the meaning of ANY other word,
>> or those words would need to be lower than it on the meaning tree.
>>
>> Dogma IS CORRECT is fields with actual authorities.
>>
>>>
>>>> Find a word that doesn't use words to define its sense meaning. If
>>>> there is no "first word" then there must be a cycle.
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4llek$3sben$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335630 |
On 6/15/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to
>>> conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>>>
>>
>> {cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
>> for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
>> strings.
>>
>
> But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it provides
> us no knowledge about our actual world.
>
WrongO it provides the single unit of meaning that
{cat} <is a> {animal}
Encode another googol of meaning postulates and we will know
all of the general knowledge about cats and everything else.
The key basis of ALL of this that most of the experts in the
field are mostly clueless about is Truthmaker Maximalism.
If there is no physical or conceptual thing that makes expression
X true then X is conclusively proven untrue on this basis.
--
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 | 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4mj7m$3n5c$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335631 |
On 6/15/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>
>>>>
>>>> EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to
>>>> conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> {cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
>>> for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
>>> strings.
>>>
>>
>> But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it
>> provides us no knowledge about our actual world.
>>
>
> WrongO it provides the single unit of meaning that
> {cat} <is a> {animal}
Which, since we don't have {cat} to talk about, being JUST A STRING OF
SYMBOLS it gives no knowledge about anything other than the system with
all the other meaningless symbols.
>
> Encode another googol of meaning postulates and we will know
> all of the general knowledge about cats and everything else.
No, we have all the general knowledge about {cat}s and {everything else}
>
> The key basis of ALL of this that most of the experts in the
> field are mostly clueless about is Truthmaker Maximalism.
>
> If there is no physical or conceptual thing that makes expression
> X true then X is conclusively proven untrue on this basis.
>
And there can not be any such thing if the strings are just meaningless
strings. So, we need definitional links to connect those strings to
something that provides meaning to them.
And in the system, without such links to establish the truth of the base
principles in the system, you need to just "assume" some are true
without a truth maker (and with the links, their truthmakers are out of
system).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4mosu$1qt6$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335635 |
On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to
>>>>> conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> {cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
>>>> for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
>>>> strings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it
>>> provides us no knowledge about our actual world.
>>>
>>
>> WrongO it provides the single unit of meaning that
>> {cat} <is a> {animal}
>
> Which, since we don't have {cat} to talk about, being JUST A STRING OF
> SYMBOLS it gives no knowledge about anything other than the system with
> all the other meaningless symbols.
>
It provides the single piece of knowledge that
{cat} <is a type of> {animal}
>>
>> Encode another googol of meaning postulates and we will know
>> all of the general knowledge about cats and everything else.
>
> No, we have all the general knowledge about {cat}s and {everything else}
>
googol = 10^100
googolplex = 10^googol --- 10^10^100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
This knowledge could be encoded as a list individual meaning
postulates. with the subscript of the meaning postulate being
its identifier.
{cats> <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {living things}
{living things} <are> {physically existing things}
{physically existing things} <are> {things}
{cats} <have> {four legs}
Try to make an example with a cycle.
>>
>> The key basis of ALL of this that most of the experts in the
>> field are mostly clueless about is Truthmaker Maximalism.
>>
>> If there is no physical or conceptual thing that makes expression
>> X true then X is conclusively proven untrue on this basis.
>>
>
> And there can not be any such thing if the strings are just meaningless
> strings. So, we need definitional links to connect those strings to
> something that provides meaning to them.
>
We simply hypothesize that all of the knowledge of the world
that can be encoded using language is already encoded using
language.
> And in the system, without such links to establish the truth of the base
> principles in the system, you need to just "assume" some are true
> without a truth maker (and with the links, their truthmakers are out of
> system).
We do not merely assume that {cats} <are not>
{fifteen story office buildings} after the terms {cat}
and {office building} are fully encoded in postulates
we can see that they have mutually exclusive properties.
{cats} <are> {living things}
{office buildings} <are not> {living 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 | 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4n7fg$61l9$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335638 |
On 6/16/24 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them
>>>>>> to conenct them to actual ideas and things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> {cat} <is a> {animal} is more than zero meaning
>>>>> for the otherwise totally meaning less finite
>>>>> strings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, without the link from {cat} to the English word "Cat", it
>>>> provides us no knowledge about our actual world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WrongO it provides the single unit of meaning that
>>> {cat} <is a> {animal}
>>
>> Which, since we don't have {cat} to talk about, being JUST A STRING OF
>> SYMBOLS it gives no knowledge about anything other than the system
>> with all the other meaningless symbols.
>>
>
> It provides the single piece of knowledge that
> {cat} <is a type of> {animal}
>
Which tells me nothing of this world. I can't tell if {cat} represents
my cat, or my dog, or my work place, or the color Red.
Without a definition that likes the terms in the ontology to our world,
the ontology is worthless for asking about things that matter.
>>>
>>> Encode another googol of meaning postulates and we will know
>>> all of the general knowledge about cats and everything else.
>>
>> No, we have all the general knowledge about {cat}s and {everything else}
>>
>
> googol = 10^100
> googolplex = 10^googol --- 10^10^100
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
>
> This knowledge could be encoded as a list individual meaning
> postulates. with the subscript of the meaning postulate being
> its identifier.
>
> {cats> <are> {animals}
> {animals} <are> {living things}
> {living things} <are> {physically existing things}
> {physically existing things} <are> {things}
> {cats} <have> {four legs}
>
> Try to make an example with a cycle.
So, what keeps me from thinking that {cat} could represent my Dog?
>
>>>
>>> The key basis of ALL of this that most of the experts in the
>>> field are mostly clueless about is Truthmaker Maximalism.
>>>
>>> If there is no physical or conceptual thing that makes expression
>>> X true then X is conclusively proven untrue on this basis.
>>>
>>
>> And there can not be any such thing if the strings are just
>> meaningless strings. So, we need definitional links to connect those
>> strings to something that provides meaning to them.
>>
>
> We simply hypothesize that all of the knowledge of the world
> that can be encoded using language is already encoded using
> language.
And nothing in that system means anything about our world, without
having the connecting statement between them
We could encrypt all the names of the objects in the system, and the
system would be exactly the same.
>
>> And in the system, without such links to establish the truth of the
>> base principles in the system, you need to just "assume" some are true
>> without a truth maker (and with the links, their truthmakers are out
>> of system).
>
> We do not merely assume that {cats} <are not>
> {fifteen story office buildings} after the terms {cat}
> and {office building} are fully encoded in postulates
> we can see that they have mutually exclusive properties.
>
> {cats} <are> {living things}
> {office buildings} <are not> {living things}.
>
But what keeps the {cats} (in the system) from being a 15 story office
building in our universe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4jv2n$222a$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335517 |
Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: > The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is correct > then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot > possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human understanding > of truth that is actually broken. I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. |
| Message-ID | <v4k18r$3f0hc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335534 |
On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is correct >> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot >> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human understanding >> of truth that is actually broken. > I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that > not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. > He didn't even prove this. He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be proved in matamath thus is true in metamath. G lacks a truthmaker in PA and has a truthmaker in metamath. Tarski did the same thing yet started with the actual Liar Paradox. I am not going to bother to show you his proof it is over your head. -- 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 09:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) |
| Message-ID | <v4k6ag$2218$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335538 |
On 6/15/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is correct >>> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot >>> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human understanding >>> of truth that is actually broken. >> I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that >> not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. >> > > He didn't even prove this. > He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA > cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be > proved in matamath thus is true in metamath. No, you are just showing you don't know what you are talking about. You have admitted that you don't even understand the actual statement he was using, but can only understand it as the simplication through implication in the meta-thoery. G, the statement about the non-existance of a Natural Number 'g' that satisfied the specified relationship. It can be shown (in the meta-theory) that no such number can exist, so G must be true. Either the number 'g' exists or it doesn't so their can be no middle ground, and it if is shown (in the meta theory) that if such a number 'g' existed, then we could build a proof (as encoded in the finite number 'g') in PA that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY no such number exist. There can not be a number that proves that itself doesn't exist, so there must not be such a number. The only other alternative is the doomsday assumption that there exists NO consistant logic system that meets the minimum requirements for the proof, when basically means all the math we normally used has to be part of an inconsistant system, and thus, by the principle of explosion, EVERYTHING can be proven true somehow. > > G lacks a truthmaker in PA and has a truthmaker in metamath. > Tarski did the same thing yet started with the actual Liar Paradox. > I am not going to bother to show you his proof it is over your head. > No, it has a 'truth-maker' and tha truth-maker is the INFINITE SEQUENCE of testing EVERY Natural Number and seeing that none of the satisfy the relationship. Being an infinite sequence of steps, means that it is not a "proof", which BY DEFINITION, must be a finite series of steps. The meta-math allows a relationship that allows us to compress that infinite sequence into a finite sequence, so we can prove it in the meta-math
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) |
| Message-ID | <v4k9bv$3gc4t$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335547 |
On 6/15/2024 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is correct >>>> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot >>>> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human >>>> understanding >>>> of truth that is actually broken. >>> I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that >>> not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. >>> >> >> He didn't even prove this. >> He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA >> cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be >> proved in matamath thus is true in metamath. > > No, you are just showing you don't know what you are talking about. > > You have admitted that you don't even understand the actual statement he > was using, but can only understand it as the simplication through > implication in the meta-thoery. > > G, the statement about the non-existance of a Natural Number 'g' that > satisfied the specified relationship. > > It can be shown (in the meta-theory) that no such number can exist, so G > must be true. Either the number 'g' exists or it doesn't so their can be > no middle ground, and it if is shown (in the meta theory) that if such a > number 'g' existed, then we could build a proof (as encoded in the > finite number 'g') in PA that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY no such number exist. *This is the crux of your correct insight* > There can not be a number that proves that itself doesn't exist, so > there must not be such a number. > There can be no proof in PA that G cannot be proven in PA because such a proof in PA requires a sequence of inference steps in PA that prove that they themselves do not exist. *To sum this up in my terminology G has no truthmaker in PA* -- 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 11:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) |
| Message-ID | <v4kaqn$2219$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335562 |
On 6/15/24 10:44 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> >>>>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is >>>>> correct >>>>> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot >>>>> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human >>>>> understanding >>>>> of truth that is actually broken. >>>> I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that >>>> not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. >>>> >>> >>> He didn't even prove this. >>> He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA >>> cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be >>> proved in matamath thus is true in metamath. >> >> No, you are just showing you don't know what you are talking about. >> >> You have admitted that you don't even understand the actual statement >> he was using, but can only understand it as the simplication through >> implication in the meta-thoery. >> >> G, the statement about the non-existance of a Natural Number 'g' that >> satisfied the specified relationship. >> >> It can be shown (in the meta-theory) that no such number can exist, so >> G must be true. Either the number 'g' exists or it doesn't so their >> can be no middle ground, and it if is shown (in the meta theory) that >> if such a number 'g' existed, then we could build a proof (as encoded >> in the finite number 'g') in PA that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY no such >> number exist. > > *This is the crux of your correct insight* >> There can not be a number that proves that itself doesn't exist, so >> there must not be such a number. >> > > There can be no proof in PA that G cannot be proven in PA > because such a proof in PA requires a sequence of inference > steps in PA that prove that they themselves do not exist. > > *To sum this up in my terminology G has no truthmaker in PA* > You have it wrong because you don't understand the meaning of your own terms or are just lying. Yes, there is no PROOF in PA that no number 'g' exists, so no proof in PA of G. That does not mean there isn't a set of TRUTH-MAKERS that establish that G is true, and that no number 'g exists. It takes an INFINITE number of steps, that of testing each individual Natural Number to see if it satisfies the relationship, and it turns out that none of them will. This is not a "Proof", as BY DEFINITION, Proofs are a finite sequence of steps, but it DOES establish that G is true, and no such number exists. So, if your terminology says that isn't a Truth-Maker fof G, your truthmaker terminology is just incorrect. Note, most statements don't have *A* Truth-maker, but a set of Truth-makers that establish them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) |
| Message-ID | <v4kbar$3h3iu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335547 |
On 6/15/2024 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is correct >>>> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot >>>> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human >>>> understanding >>>> of truth that is actually broken. >>> I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that >>> not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. >>> >> >> He didn't even prove this. >> He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA >> cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be >> proved in matamath thus is true in metamath. > > No, you are just showing you don't know what you are talking about. > > You have admitted that you don't even understand the actual statement he > was using, but can only understand it as the simplication through > implication in the meta-thoery. > > G, the statement about the non-existance of a Natural Number 'g' that > satisfied the specified relationship. > > It can be shown (in the meta-theory) that no such number can exist, so G > must be true. Either the number 'g' exists or it doesn't so their can be > no middle ground, and it if is shown (in the meta theory) that if such a > number 'g' existed, then we could build a proof (as encoded in the > finite number 'g') in PA that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY no such number exist. > There can not be a number that proves that itself doesn't exist, so > there must not be such a number. > Isomorphically there can be no proof that proves itself doesn't exist, so there must not be such a proof. -- 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 11:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) |
| Message-ID | <v4kbnr$2219$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335572 |
On 6/15/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 8:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 6:48 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:39:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> >>>>> The key aspect of all of this is that if the halting problem is >>>>> correct >>>>> then truth itself is fundamentally broken. Since truth itself cannot >>>>> possibly be fundamentally broken it must be fallible human >>>>> understanding >>>>> of truth that is actually broken. >>>> I've got bad news for you, and you're a century late. Gödel proved that >>>> not all true statements are provable. It sure would have been nice. >>>> >>> >>> He didn't even prove this. >>> He proved that a statement that can be expressed in PA >>> cannot be proving in PA that is not true in PA yet can be >>> proved in matamath thus is true in metamath. >> >> No, you are just showing you don't know what you are talking about. >> >> You have admitted that you don't even understand the actual statement >> he was using, but can only understand it as the simplication through >> implication in the meta-thoery. >> >> G, the statement about the non-existance of a Natural Number 'g' that >> satisfied the specified relationship. >> >> It can be shown (in the meta-theory) that no such number can exist, so >> G must be true. Either the number 'g' exists or it doesn't so their >> can be no middle ground, and it if is shown (in the meta theory) that >> if such a number 'g' existed, then we could build a proof (as encoded >> in the finite number 'g') in PA that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY no such >> number exist. > >> There can not be a number that proves that itself doesn't exist, so >> there must not be such a number. >> > > Isomorphically there can be no proof that proves itself doesn't exist, > so there must not be such a proof. > So? In the meta-math there IS a proof that there is no number 'g' that satisfies that relationship, but that isn't doing a proof about ITSELF. The key is that if we find a number 'g' in PA that satisfies the relationship, then via the operations in the meta-math, we can CONSTRUCT an actual proof in PA that such a number can not exist. This becomes the proof, in the meta-math, that no number 'g' can exist. In PA alone, we can still establish that fact, but only with infinite work, so we can't form a proof of that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52s4l$2vlma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335503 |
On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>> present >>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>> >>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong >>>>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes >>>>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient >>>>>> technical competence. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>> >>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>> >>> >>> >>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>> >>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider >>> are supposed to use, as >>> >> >> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! > > > No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your > POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is defined > by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem BACKWARDS, like > most of your logic. > _DDD() [00002093] 55 push ebp [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000020a3] 5d pop ebp [000020a4] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* -- 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 | 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52td1$june$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335758 |
On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>>> >>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong >>>>>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes >>>>>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient >>>>>>> technical competence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>> >>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider >>>> are supposed to use, as >>>> >>> >>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >> >> >> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your >> POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >> > > _DDD() > [00002093] 55 push ebp > [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD > [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 > [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [000020a3] 5d pop ebp > [000020a4] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] > > There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated > by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to > the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address > [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* > > *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* > It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! You are just trying to assume the conclusion. You are just showing that you believe in strawman and lies. You have been cast out of the realms of logic into the hell of your own lies, which you can not see because you have brainwashed yourself. The DEFINITION of the question, is does the direct execution of the machine represented by the input halt. ANY CLAIMS OTHERWISE just proves you are a LIAR, which you have very conclusively proved. Thus, you have shown you have built a perfect Rev 21 trap for yourself, all signed, sealed ans just waiting for your soon to come delivery, unless you figure how to cancel your ticket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52tul$307ee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335759 |
On 6/20/2024 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" >>>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong >>>>>>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes >>>>>>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient >>>>>>>> technical competence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>>> >>>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that >>>>> decider are supposed to use, as >>>>> >>>> >>>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >>> >>> >>> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your >>> POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >>> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >>> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >>> >> >> _DDD() >> [00002093] 55 push ebp >> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD >> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 >> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp >> [000020a4] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] >> >> There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated >> by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to >> the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address >> [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* >> >> *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* >> > > It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! > That is the only definitive way to determine the actual behavior that the finite string specifies. -- 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]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web