Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #641406 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 17:53 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:07 -0600
Re: A new category of thought dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:19 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 16:55 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:04 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:49 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:26 -0600
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:46 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:52 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-12-05 19:57 -0700
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 21:18 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:01 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:40 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:47 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:16 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:04 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 09:55 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:43 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 22:16 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 21:50 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-07 05:32 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-07 15:49 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:38 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 07:32 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 07:37 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:55 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 17:15 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 21:50 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:26 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:40 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:47 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 19:18 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 19:00 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 20:34 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:57 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:16 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 22:22 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:50 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:30 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 10:05 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:14 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 07:07 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:41 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:57 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:30 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:53 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:33 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:42 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:03 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 06:12 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 07:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:18 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 20:23 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:51 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 16:27 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:53 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:17 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:35 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:10 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:49 -0800
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:50 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:59 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-01 23:11 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 21:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 22:44 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:19 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:21 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:13 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 19:50 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 13:02 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:15 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 10:53 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:00 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:41 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 09:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:48 +0200
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-05 09:30 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 10:41 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:37 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:24 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:39 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 08:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-09 15:15 +0200
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:04 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-14 13:02 +0200
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 20:01 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 17:37 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 13:44 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 12:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h769b$b14f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641738 |
On 12/8/2025 3:55 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 08/12/2025 03:21, olcott wrote: > >> The received view based on Quine >> >> Two Dogmas of Empiricism1a >> Willard Van Orman Quine >> https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf >> >> It that the relationship between Bachelor(x) >> and ~Married(x) is circular thus unsound. >> > > It's circular properties are soundly circular, Not when the RHS is simply assigned to the LHD as the complete source of its total meaning. In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory ∀x ∈ Human (Bachelor(x) ↔ (Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ ~Married(x))) sentence_7 token="FOR_ALL" | sentence_7 token="ELEMENT_OF" | | sentence_7 token="IDENTIFIER" value="x" | | sentence_7 token="IDENTIFIER" value="Human" | sentence_11 token="IFF" | | atomic_sentence_1 token="IDENTIFIER" value="Bachelor" | | | term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="x" | | sentence_12 token="AND" | | | sentence_12 token="AND" | | | | atomic_sentence_1 token="IDENTIFIER" value="Male" | | | | | term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="x" | | | | atomic_sentence_1 token="IDENTIFIER" value="Adult" | | | | | term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="x" | | | sentence_2 token="NOT" | | | | atomic_sentence_1 token="IDENTIFIER" value="Married" | | | | | term_2 token="IDENTIFIER" value="x" > you can reason about > them. We rely on it to define terms in philosophy where we reference > thought with language instead of referencing shared experiences (which > is too nondeterministic itself). When two sets of terms have the same > relationships we can then choose either to identify them or not. It > relies on intuitionistic reasoning a lot of the time, acknowledging that > your system is not closed. > > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 22:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vk6ZQ.29598$4LD1.834@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #641659 |
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term >>>>>>>>>> for "definition". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some >>>>>>>>> effort >>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>> >>>>>> It does not. >>>>> >>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>> >>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>> >>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>> the words but does not define anything >> >> In other words you are trying to get away with >> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >> word is defined. > > There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that > define words of one language in terms of words of another language. > There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings > of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular > and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries > of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know > the meanings of most of the words from other sources. > This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how formal langagues work. In a formal language, there is a set of primative terms that just mean themselves, and that meaning of all other terms are defined by the relationships to those primative terms. Natural Languages have core meanings that are just established by tradition, and are not finitely discreet, but many are actually spectrums based on context. Words like "Big" don't have fixed defined meanings. Dictionaries for Natural Languages try to approximate these bounds of relationships, but are never precise, and as you point out, will have ciruclarity, especially for core concepts that tend to need many words to try to define them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 21:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h2tiv$18m1m$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641689 |
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term >>>>>>>>>>> for "definition". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take >>>>>>>>>> some effort >>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>>> >>>>>>> It does not. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>>> >>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>>> >>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>>> the words but does not define anything >>> >>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >>> word is defined. >> >> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >> > > This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how > formal langagues work. > No. It is that you don't understand how Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 05:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-4_SQHjKmX72iMmeMrlbdClxI6c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641690 |
Le 07/12/2025 à 04:50, polcott a écrit : > On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >>>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term >>>>>>>>>>>> for "definition". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take >>>>>>>>>>> some effort >>>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>>>> >>>>>>>> It does not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>>>> >>>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>>>> the words but does not define anything >>>> >>>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >>>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >>>> word is defined. >>> >>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>> >> >> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >> formal langagues work. >> > > No. It is that you don't understand how > Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. > Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. Sure. They even know about spoons eating dogs: In the realm of Silverwood, enchanted spoons woke up one morning with a strange craving: they wanted to eat dogs' *worries*. Not the dogs themselves—just the glowing little anxieties floating above every canine like tiny lanterns. The spoons marched across the land, clinking like metal crickets. Dogs barked in confusion. Humans panicked. Spoons vibrated with excitement. But when they reached Brindle, the oldest shepherd dog, his worries were so wise and deep that the spoons swallowed them and instantly became thoughtful, sleepy, and kind. "Enough eating," declared the Chief Spoon. "From now on, we walk the dogs." And so Silverwood became the only kingdom where spoons could be seen taking dogs for evening strolls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h47n4$3hg8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641691 |
On 07/12/2025 05:32, Python wrote: > Le 07/12/2025 à 04:50, polcott a écrit : >> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >>>>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for "definition". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some effort >>>>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It does not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>>>>> >>>>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>>>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>>>>> the words but does not define anything >>>>> >>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>>>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >>>>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >>>>> word is defined. >>>> >>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>> >>> >>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how formal langagues work. >>> >> >> No. It is that you don't understand how >> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. > > Sure. They even know about spoons eating dogs: > > In the realm of Silverwood, enchanted spoons woke up one morning > with a strange craving: they wanted to eat dogs' *worries*. > Not the dogs themselves—just the glowing little anxieties > floating above every canine like tiny lanterns. > > The spoons marched across the land, clinking like metal crickets. > Dogs barked in confusion. Humans panicked. Spoons vibrated > with excitement. > > But when they reached Brindle, the oldest shepherd dog, > his worries were so wise and deep that the spoons swallowed them > and instantly became thoughtful, sleepy, and kind. > > "Enough eating," declared the Chief Spoon. > "From now on, we walk the dogs." > > And so Silverwood became the only kingdom where spoons > could be seen taking dogs for evening strolls. > That makes sense - the spoons would be especially well suited to cleaning up when their companions poop, as all civilised nations require! Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 11:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h4e34$3k6p3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641713 |
On 12/7/2025 9:49 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 07/12/2025 05:32, Python wrote: >> Le 07/12/2025 à 04:50, polcott a écrit : >>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >>>>>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another >>>>>>>>>>>>>> term for "definition". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take >>>>>>>>>>>>> some effort >>>>>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of >>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning >>>>>>>>>>> expressed >>>>>>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It does not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>>>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A >>>>>>> square >>>>>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the >>>>>>> menanings of >>>>>>> the words but does not define anything >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>>>>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >>>>>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >>>>>> word is defined. >>>>> >>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >>>> formal langagues work. >>>> >>> >>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >> >> Sure. They even know about spoons eating dogs: >> >> In the realm of Silverwood, enchanted spoons woke up one morning >> with a strange craving: they wanted to eat dogs' *worries*. >> Not the dogs themselves—just the glowing little anxieties >> floating above every canine like tiny lanterns. >> >> The spoons marched across the land, clinking like metal crickets. >> Dogs barked in confusion. Humans panicked. Spoons vibrated >> with excitement. >> >> But when they reached Brindle, the oldest shepherd dog, >> his worries were so wise and deep that the spoons swallowed them >> and instantly became thoughtful, sleepy, and kind. >> >> "Enough eating," declared the Chief Spoon. >> "From now on, we walk the dogs." >> >> And so Silverwood became the only kingdom where spoons >> could be seen taking dogs for evening strolls. >> > > That makes sense - the spoons would be especially well suited to > cleaning up when their companions poop, as all civilised nations require! > > Mike. > I am sure happy that LLM systems have conclusively proved that their assessment of my work is correct on the basis that they can show all of the details of how my new ideas are semantically entailed by accepted definitions in the various fields. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 07:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8a654b7b-57e2-48a1-a5ee-4168bb27d5f7@Damon-Family.org> |
| In reply to | #641690 |
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>> >> >> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >> formal langagues work. >> > > No. It is that you don't understand how > Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. > Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. > No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just a liar. You claimed to have perminately "plonked" me so you would no longer see what I write, but apparently that is a lie. I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the meaning of the following sentence: She showed she was a big girl. That is a classic sentence showing the problem with trying to use "Natural Language" in a formal manner. For the other idea you bring up, show the COMPLETE set of UUIDs (with meaning) that you could attack to "big" to make its meaning precise, and which one applies to this sentence. The problem is you don't understand what exactly a "Formal Language" is, and how they establish meaning. Just like you can't distinguish between Truth and Knowledge. You are just a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you know that approximate meaning of a few terms, and guessed at the meaning of a lot of others, and you think you are smarter than everyone else, when all you are doing is proving how stupid you are. My guess is you are going to continue your pattern of ignoring the hard question where answering wll show how little you know, and thus prove to everyone watch how stupid you actually are. It seems your world doesn't actually HAVE semantics, as to you, all words are flexible in meaning and can be arbitrarily redefined, so your system that tries to base itself on meaning, has actually removed that base from the system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 07:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h3vun$3fbm7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641705 |
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>> >>> >>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >>> formal langagues work. >>> >> >> No. It is that you don't understand how >> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >> > > No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just a > liar. > If that was true you could show that with reasoning. By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <TBnZQ.215518$uGW5.126824@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #641706 |
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >>>> formal langagues work. >>>> >>> >>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>> >> >> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just >> a liar. >> > > If that was true you could show that with reasoning. > By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. > You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of word. DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless, as meaning is broken,. Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you are talking about. I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the meaning of the following sentence: >> She showed she was a big girl. And since you failed to reply to that challenge, you just admitted that you don't know how to do what you claimed. Thus, I HAVE shown with reasoning that you can't handle your claim. Note, those sentences show that your claim isn't valid, as those sentences show. If you want to refute me, show how your "method" handles those. Your problem is your "logic" is based on just assuming that you can do something, and that just makes an ASS our of U.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 17:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h51q9$1a2d1$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641719 |
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >>>>> formal langagues work. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>> >>> >>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just >>> a liar. >>> >> >> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >> > > You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of word. > > DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. > > If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless, as > meaning is broken,. > > Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you are > talking about. > > I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: > > >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an > admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. > > >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the meaning > of the following sentence: > > >> She showed she was a big girl. > When you begin a reply with anything besides reasoning I will always ignore the rest. My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. I must first know your intended sense meanings. showed: seems to mean demonstrated big girl: seems to mean something like average maturity for a 10 year old girl In any case none of these details matter. All that matters is that it is feasible to encode the body of general knowledge using Montague Grammar in a Knowledge ontology. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 21:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <42rZQ.225830$uGW5.38065@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #641720 |
On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >>>>>> formal langagues work. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>> just a liar. >>>> >>> >>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>> >> >> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of word. >> >> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. >> >> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless, >> as meaning is broken,. >> >> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you are >> talking about. >> >> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >> >> >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an >> admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >> >> >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >> meaning of the following sentence: >> >> >> She showed she was a big girl. >> > > When you begin a reply with anything besides > reasoning I will always ignore the rest. So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning" > > My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique > GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable. As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big" > > I must first know your intended sense meanings. > showed: seems to mean demonstrated That isn't how it works. > > big girl: seems to mean something like > average maturity for a 10 year old girl Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the complexity of Natural Language. Note, I never said anything about "10 year old", so that is a figment of your imagination. This is your typical error, you ASSUME a meaning, and thus make an ASS out of U, and I refuse to be included. > > In any case none of these details matter. > All that matters is that it is feasible > to encode the body of general knowledge > using Montague Grammar in a Knowledge ontology. > Right, because in your system, actual means don't matter because you reserve the right to change it. Thus, there can not be a truth by meaning, as there is no actual meaning. You are just showing that you don't have an actual system, but the idea of a system that you hope and assume does what you want, even though you have been shown it doesn't. So many of your messages are based you claiming someone is wrong or stupid because the said something, and then you show that you don't actually understand what they said, as your summary doesn't match what they actually did say. This just shows how bad your own idea of logic is. Sorry, you have still demonstarted that you don't know what you are talking about, proven by the fact you couldn't answer the question, but just showed you don't understand the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 21:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h5ghl$3t4f3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641724 |
On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>>>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the >>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>> how formal langagues work. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>>> just a liar. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>> >>> >>> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of >>> word. >>> >>> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. >>> >>> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless, >>> as meaning is broken,. >>> >>> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you >>> are talking about. >>> >>> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >>> >>> >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be >>> an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >>> >>> >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>> meaning of the following sentence: >>> >>> >> She showed she was a big girl. >>> >> >> When you begin a reply with anything besides >> reasoning I will always ignore the rest. > > So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning" > >> >> My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique >> GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. > > Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable. > > As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big" > >> >> I must first know your intended sense meanings. >> showed: seems to mean demonstrated > > That isn't how it works. > >> >> big girl: seems to mean something like >> average maturity for a 10 year old girl > > Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the > complexity of Natural Language. > I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by mathematically formalizing the body of general knowledge as relations between GUID's. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 07:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nHzZQ.71914$D_G4.7104@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #641729 |
On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>>>>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another >>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the >>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>>>>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>>>>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>>> how formal langagues work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>>>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>>>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>>>> just a liar. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of >>>> word. >>>> >>>> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. >>>> >>>> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are >>>> worthless, as meaning is broken,. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you >>>> are talking about. >>>> >>>> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >>>> >>>> >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be >>>> an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >>>> >>>> >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>>> meaning of the following sentence: >>>> >>>> >> She showed she was a big girl. >>>> >>> >>> When you begin a reply with anything besides >>> reasoning I will always ignore the rest. >> >> So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning" >> >>> >>> My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique >>> GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. >> >> Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable. >> >> As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big" >> >>> >>> I must first know your intended sense meanings. >>> showed: seems to mean demonstrated >> >> That isn't how it works. >> >>> >>> big girl: seems to mean something like >>> average maturity for a 10 year old girl >> >> Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the >> complexity of Natural Language. >> > > I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by > mathematically formalizing the body of > general knowledge as relations between GUID's. > No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the statement I gave you. You have an understanding of an understanding, but that understanding has inherent holes because you logic is just too primitive. You are just continuing to show that you don't REALLY understand what you are talking about, as you can't reduce your ideas to a concrete base here. You CLAIM to have a system, but it is actualy just an outline of a system that turns out to be infeasible because you just ignore the problematic issues by looking at only the simplest problems, and assuming you can move to harder problems, when you can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 12:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h76fq$b30a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641739 |
On 12/8/2025 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote: >>>> On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another >>>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the >>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are >>>>>>>>>> circular >>>>>>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. >>>>>>>>>> Dictionaries >>>>>>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>>>>>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>>>> how formal langagues work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>>>>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>>>>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>>>>> just a liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of >>>>> word. >>>>> >>>>> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. >>>>> >>>>> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are >>>>> worthless, as meaning is broken,. >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you >>>>> are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >>>>> >>>>> >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be >>>>> an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >>>>> >>>>> >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>>>> meaning of the following sentence: >>>>> >>>>> >> She showed she was a big girl. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you begin a reply with anything besides >>>> reasoning I will always ignore the rest. >>> >>> So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning" >>> >>>> >>>> My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique >>>> GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. >>> >>> Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable. >>> >>> As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big" >>> >>>> >>>> I must first know your intended sense meanings. >>>> showed: seems to mean demonstrated >>> >>> That isn't how it works. >>> >>>> >>>> big girl: seems to mean something like >>>> average maturity for a 10 year old girl >>> >>> Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the >>> complexity of Natural Language. >>> >> >> I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by >> mathematically formalizing the body of >> general knowledge as relations between GUID's. >> > > No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the > statement I gave you. > It was your error of insufficiently specifying which of many sense meanings that you intended. It was not inherently ambiguity it is lack of sufficient specification. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cVJZQ.1338$C_K8.154@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #641747 |
On 12/8/25 1:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another >>>>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the >>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are >>>>>>>>>>> circular >>>>>>>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. >>>>>>>>>>> Dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already >>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>>>>> how formal langagues work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>>>>>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>>>>>> just a liar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>>>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning >>>>>> of word. >>>>>> >>>>>> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are >>>>>> worthless, as meaning is broken,. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you >>>>>> are talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will >>>>>> be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>>>>> meaning of the following sentence: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> She showed she was a big girl. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When you begin a reply with anything besides >>>>> reasoning I will always ignore the rest. >>>> >>>> So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning" >>>> >>>>> >>>>> My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique >>>>> GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. >>>> >>>> Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable. >>>> >>>> As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big" >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I must first know your intended sense meanings. >>>>> showed: seems to mean demonstrated >>>> >>>> That isn't how it works. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> big girl: seems to mean something like >>>>> average maturity for a 10 year old girl >>>> >>>> Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the >>>> complexity of Natural Language. >>>> >>> >>> I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by >>> mathematically formalizing the body of >>> general knowledge as relations between GUID's. >>> >> >> No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the >> statement I gave you. >> > > It was your error of insufficiently specifying > which of many sense meanings that you intended. > > It was not inherently ambiguity it is lack of > sufficient specification. > What did I insufficeintly specify? I asked you to provide the total set of UUIDs with meaning that define all the meaning of the word "big". Not the meaning in that sentence. If the set of UUIDs for a word can't be specified, then the system can't be used to formalize the language, because it clearly isn't finiite (and thus would exhaust any system of UUIDs). Then I asked how the grammer would determine the meaning of the sentence. Note, Montegue Grammer is what you claim allows you to determine the meaning of any statement. I gave you the statement, why can't Montegue Grammer give you its meaning? Is it that Montegue Grammer doesn't do what you claim? Sorry, you are just showing that you have an insufficient understanding of what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 19:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h7sap$1brfc$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641756 |
On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 1:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is >>>>>>>>>>>> dictionaries that >>>>>>>>>>>> define words of one language in terms of words of another >>>>>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the >>>>>>>>>>>> meanings >>>>>>>>>>>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are >>>>>>>>>>>> circular >>>>>>>>>>>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. >>>>>>>>>>>> Dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already >>>>>>>>>>>> know >>>>>>>>>>>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> understand how formal langagues work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. It is that you don't understand how >>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work. >>>>>>>>>> Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he >>>>>>>>> is just a liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>>>>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning >>>>>>> of word. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are >>>>>>> worthless, as meaning is broken,. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what >>>>>>> you are talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will >>>>>>> be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>>>>>> meaning of the following sentence: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> She showed she was a big girl. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When you begin a reply with anything besides >>>>>> reasoning I will always ignore the rest. >>>>> >>>>> So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning" >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique >>>>>> GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word. >>>>> >>>>> Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable. >>>>> >>>>> As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big" >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I must first know your intended sense meanings. >>>>>> showed: seems to mean demonstrated >>>>> >>>>> That isn't how it works. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> big girl: seems to mean something like >>>>>> average maturity for a 10 year old girl >>>>> >>>>> Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the >>>>> complexity of Natural Language. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by >>>> mathematically formalizing the body of >>>> general knowledge as relations between GUID's. >>>> >>> >>> No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the >>> statement I gave you. >>> >> >> It was your error of insufficiently specifying >> which of many sense meanings that you intended. >> >> It was not inherently ambiguity it is lack of >> sufficient specification. >> > > What did I insufficeintly specify? > Troll -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MLLZQ.123367$3rOd.1945@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #641757 |
On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> What did I insufficeintly specify? >> > > Troll > In other words, you admit defeat. That has consistantly been your answer when someone shows you up, and demonstrates your failing. Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a hypocritical pathological stupid liar that just doesn't know what he is talking about, and doesn't care about this stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 20:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <10h81s1$1buad$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641758 |
On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote: >> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> >>> What did I insufficeintly specify? >>> >> >> Troll >> > > > In other words, you admit defeat. > Not in the least little bit. The key difference with you as a troll compared to other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep understanding of some of these things. The following may not be over your head if you cared to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode: Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis that this [finite string] input specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic or syntactic property. If Tristan did not understand it he would not have been able to correctly improve it. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 21:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <PeMZQ.41146$aeF6.31979@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #641759 |
On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote: > On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote: >>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>>> >>>> What did I insufficeintly specify? >>>> >>> >>> Troll >>> >> >> >> In other words, you admit defeat. >> > > Not in the least little bit. Then why didn't you answer the question? > The key difference with you as a troll compared to > other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep > understanding of some of these things. So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you just refuse to answer the question. The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that you are smarter than me? The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen. > > The following may not be over your head if you cared > to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode: > > Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from > their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject > state on the basis that this [finite string] input > specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic > or syntactic property. Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on. If the finite string given to the Halt Decider doesn't semantically specify the behavior of the program we are asking about when run, then you gave it the wrong string, or the decider just isn't powerful enough to do its job. The problem is you claim that it can not represent that behavior is isomorphic to claiming that Universal Turing Machies do not exist, as they demonstrate that it *IS* possible to completely encode the behavior of the machine semantically in a finite string. Your problem is you have been caught in the lie that you claim that the call to HHH(DD) in DD is actually a correct asking of the behavior of DD when run, but you also try to claim that it can't be. If HHH(DD) isn't asking that question, then your DD just isn't the program from the proof, because you HHH doesn't have the right semantics for its input, and thus just isn't a halt decider, and you are just a stupid liar. > > If Tristan did not understand it he would not have > been able to correctly improve it. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 21:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <10h84b8$1bvst$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641760 |
On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Troll
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>
>>
>> Not in the least little bit.
>
> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>
>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>> understanding of some of these things.
>
> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you just
> refuse to answer the question.
>
> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied about
> what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that you are
> smarter than me?
>
> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running aways
> scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>
>>
>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>
>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>> or syntactic property.
>
> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the answer to
> the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>
I will give you a much simpler example.
If a universal truth predicate is defined
to return true when and expression is true
and false when an expression is false then
what does it correctly return for this:
True("What time is it")
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web