Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #646250 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-07-16 09:47 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:24 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 15:26 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:34 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 09:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 08:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 11:22 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 16:41 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 19:16 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 15:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 10:02 +0000
Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 09:12 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 10:35 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 19:49 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-12 11:23 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:00 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:04 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:19 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 15:34 -0400
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:44 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 13:47 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:34 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:11 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:33 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:56 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:40 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-09 14:15 -0600
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 14:04 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 22:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 00:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:46 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 21:14 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 17:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 00:14 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 15:58 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-10 10:37 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 08:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 08:51 -0600
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 09:57 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 11:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 17:02 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 12:28 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 12:12 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 18:27 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:57 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 13:11 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 14:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 14:52 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:50 -0700
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 11:16 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 12:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 12:06 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 13:07 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 14:30 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 14:46 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 21:32 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 16:44 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 23:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-11 06:33 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 20:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 10:45 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 19:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-10 10:52 +0300
Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 09:05 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 11:08 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 20:00 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-12 12:15 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:10 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:08 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:25 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 11:52 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:20 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 11:27 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 13:08 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 12:27 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:57 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:10 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 14:28 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:38 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:51 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:08 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:18 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 22:02 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 15:04 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:11 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 15:32 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 16:13 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:20 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 16:46 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:56 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 17:02 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 18:42 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 20:23 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 19:38 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 20:56 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 20:23 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:31 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-15 20:38 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:44 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 16:53 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:51 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:09 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 11:12 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 11:50 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:52 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:12 +0100
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 12:07 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:18 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-15 19:21 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:52 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-16 13:54 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:47 +0300
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 13:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112reki$1fcb7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646457 |
On 7/10/2026 1:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>> inherently impossible. >>> >>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>> >>> >>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>> each word means then you can't get it. >>> >>> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct >>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages >>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. >>> >> >> "system of interconnected semantic meanings" >> Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than >> a sentence will be hard to understand. > > He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, > he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter > words, but words that are actually well-defined. > > André > Do you guys think that "interconnected" means anything beside connected together? Do you think that it might means a bunch of broken cinder blocks? Does "meanings" mean how many times that a person has been mean? Just the ordinary dictionary meaning of each word. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 11:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112r9dg$1daqo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646448 |
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>> sentneces >>>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>>>> >>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >>>> >>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>> outside the scope of the model itself. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >>> integrated into the formal system and its formal >>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >>> cannot possibly work. >> >> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even >> mention the POE. > > A concrete example of the new total to the thread > Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning That's not a coherent sentence of English. >> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an >> empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. >> > > It is not merely a model of model theory when it is > fully integrated into the formal system and thus not > a separate thing outside of the formal system. Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or another since that is an empirical question. >>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>> inherently impossible. >> >> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >> > > It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. > It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what > each word means then you can't get it. Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that. >>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>> >>> My system requires that the meaning of the words >>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >>> are unrelated thus there is no proof. >> >> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically >> entail Q in this example. > > What details about the composition of the Moon > are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. Relevance doesn't enter into it. You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused to state what that definition actually is. >> You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by 'semantically entails' > > I only ever mean what the actual words actually mean. > > Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the > English word from a dictionary. This is often the first > listing. Different dictionaries list meanings in different orders. What constitutes the 'most basic' meaning of any given term is far from clear. What 'proof' means to a logician is different from what it means to a lawyer. Which is the 'more basic' meaning? > semantic adjective > of or relating to meaning in language > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic > > entail verb > to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail And combining those two things gives me no idea of what you mean by 'semantic entailment'. > Frege's Principle of compositionality > the principle that the meaning of a complex expression > is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions > and the rules used to combine them > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality > > What is the exact compositional meaning of the term > "semantic entailment"? Not all meanings are purely compositional. Frege was well aware of this fact. > The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment > comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic > (relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical > consequence). > > In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment > is a relationship between statements where the truth > of one statement guarantees the truth of another based > strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are > syntactically constructed. Which would include the POE. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 12:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rajl$1dve6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646450 |
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>> sentneces >>>>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>>>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >>>>> >>>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>>> outside the scope of the model itself. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >>>> integrated into the formal system and its formal >>>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >>>> cannot possibly work. >>> >>> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't >>> even mention the POE. >> >> A concrete example of the new total to the thread >> Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning > > That's not a coherent sentence of English. > >>> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an >>> empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. >>> >> >> It is not merely a model of model theory when it is >> fully integrated into the formal system and thus not >> a separate thing outside of the formal system. > > Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you might > mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not correspond > to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or another since > that is an empirical question. > Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment] is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is inherently correct. >>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>> inherently impossible. >>> >>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>> >> >> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >> each word means then you can't get it. > > Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and they're > not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look at academic > papers you're not going to find people claiming that their terms are > based on the meanings of the words. They're going to give actual > definitions. There's a good reason for that. > It puts an enormous amount of information into very few words. >>>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >>>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >>>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>>> >>>> My system requires that the meaning of the words >>>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >>>> are unrelated thus there is no proof. >>> >>> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically >>> entail Q in this example. >> >> What details about the composition of the Moon >> are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? > > As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth of > the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. Relevance > doesn't enter into it. You are simply ignoring the word semantic. > You apparently have some other definition in mind > but have refused to state what that definition actually is. > semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 12:06 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rcah$1daqo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646454 |
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>>> sentneces >>>>>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>>>>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >>>>>> >>>>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>>>> outside the scope of the model itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >>>>> integrated into the formal system and its formal >>>>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >>>>> cannot possibly work. >>>> >>>> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't >>>> even mention the POE. >>> >>> A concrete example of the new total to the thread >>> Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning >> >> That's not a coherent sentence of English. >> >>>> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >>>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an >>>> empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. >>>> >>> >>> It is not merely a model of model theory when it is >>> fully integrated into the formal system and thus not >>> a separate thing outside of the formal system. >> >> Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you >> might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not >> correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or >> another since that is an empirical question. >> > > Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly > discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment] > is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is > inherently correct. That's simply a baseless assertion. And you still haven't explained what you mean by 'semantic entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic entailment]'. Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose. >>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>> inherently impossible. >>>> >>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>>> >>> >>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>> each word means then you can't get it. >> >> Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and >> they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look at >> academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that their >> terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to give >> actual definitions. There's a good reason for that. >> > > It puts an enormous amount of information into very > few words. It puts no information into very few words because the words themselves are undefined. >>>>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >>>>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >>>>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>>>> >>>>> My system requires that the meaning of the words >>>>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >>>>> are unrelated thus there is no proof. >>>> >>>> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does >>>> semantically entail Q in this example. >>> >>> What details about the composition of the Moon >>> are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? >> >> As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth of >> the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. Relevance >> doesn't enter into it. > > You are simply ignoring the word semantic. How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property. >> You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused to >> state what that definition actually is. >> > > semantic (adjective) > of or relating to meaning in language > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition. If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w. > entail (verb) > to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail > > [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. > > "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted simply by compositionally combining their parts which is not how natural language actually works, let alone technical language. If you really think compositionality is the key to everything, explain how one is supposed to understand the meaning of 'postmodern art' by simply combining the meanings of 'post-', 'modern', and 'art'. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 13:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112re1g$1f4t2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646456 |
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>>>> sentneces >>>>>>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>>>>>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>>>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>>>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>>>>> outside the scope of the model itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> André >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >>>>>> integrated into the formal system and its formal >>>>>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >>>>>> cannot possibly work. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't >>>>> even mention the POE. >>>> >>>> A concrete example of the new total to the thread >>>> Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning >>> >>> That's not a coherent sentence of English. >>> >>>>> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >>>>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an >>>>> empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is not merely a model of model theory when it is >>>> fully integrated into the formal system and thus not >>>> a separate thing outside of the formal system. >>> >>> Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you >>> might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not >>> correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or >>> another since that is an empirical question. >>> >> >> Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly >> discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment] >> is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is >> inherently correct. > > That's simply a baseless assertion. It is an assertion that proves itself true entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words. Fully integrated into the formal system and not in a separate model outside of the system is the difference between proof theoretic semantics and truth conditional semantics. That is very difficult for people that only know model theory and that is only one half of what I said. > And you still haven't explained what > you mean by 'semantic entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic > entailment]'. Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose. > If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean anything besides a cat that is not alive? >>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>> inherently impossible. >>>>> >>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>> each word means then you can't get it. >>> >>> Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and >>> they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look >>> at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that >>> their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to >>> give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that. >>> >> >> It puts an enormous amount of information into very >> few words. > > It puts no information into very few words because the words themselves > are undefined. > If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean anything besides a cat that is not alive? >>>>>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >>>>>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >>>>>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>>>>> >>>>>> My system requires that the meaning of the words >>>>>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >>>>>> are unrelated thus there is no proof. >>>>> >>>>> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does >>>>> semantically entail Q in this example. >>>> >>>> What details about the composition of the Moon >>>> are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? >>> >>> As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth >>> of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. >>> Relevance doesn't enter into it. >> >> You are simply ignoring the word semantic. > > How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property. > >>> You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused to >>> state what that definition actually is. >>> >> >> semantic (adjective) >> of or relating to meaning in language >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic > > That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition. that is 100% of all of what I mean. > If you want to > rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a mathematical or > philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w. > >> entail (verb) >> to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. >> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail >> >> [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. >> >> "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" > > And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted > simply by compositionally combining their parts Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive. > which is not how natural > language actually works, let alone technical language. > > If you really think compositionality is the key to everything, explain > how one is supposed to understand the meaning of 'postmodern art' by > simply combining the meanings of 'post-', 'modern', and 'art'. > > André > Defining the meaning of two words by combining the simplest meaning of each word is how Frege's principle of compositionality has always worked. It is not an enormously difficult paradox to understand that a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 13:07 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rfsl$1fi9d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646459 |
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>>>>> sentneces >>>>>>>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat >>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>>>>>>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>>>>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>>>>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>>>>>> outside the scope of the model itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >>>>>>> integrated into the formal system and its formal >>>>>>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >>>>>>> cannot possibly work. >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't >>>>>> even mention the POE. >>>>> >>>>> A concrete example of the new total to the thread >>>>> Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning >>>> >>>> That's not a coherent sentence of English. >>>> >>>>>> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >>>>>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an >>>>>> empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is not merely a model of model theory when it is >>>>> fully integrated into the formal system and thus not >>>>> a separate thing outside of the formal system. >>>> >>>> Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you >>>> might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not >>>> correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or >>>> another since that is an empirical question. >>>> >>> >>> Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly >>> discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment] >>> is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is >>> inherently correct. >> >> That's simply a baseless assertion. > > It is an assertion that proves itself true entirely > on the basis of the meaning of its words. > > Fully integrated into the formal system and not > in a separate model outside of the system is the > difference between proof theoretic semantics and > truth conditional semantics. That is very difficult > for people that only know model theory and that > is only one half of what I said. > >> And you still haven't explained what you mean by 'semantic >> entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic entailment]'. >> Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose. >> > > If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean > anything besides a cat that is not alive? > >>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>>> inherently impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>>> each word means then you can't get it. >>>> >>>> Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and >>>> they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look >>>> at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that >>>> their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to >>>> give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that. >>>> >>> >>> It puts an enormous amount of information into very >>> few words. >> >> It puts no information into very few words because the words >> themselves are undefined. >> > > If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean > anything besides a cat that is not alive? Again with the decorative brackets... Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was. When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg? >>>>>>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >>>>>>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >>>>>>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My system requires that the meaning of the words >>>>>>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >>>>>>> are unrelated thus there is no proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does >>>>>> semantically entail Q in this example. >>>>> >>>>> What details about the composition of the Moon >>>>> are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? >>>> >>>> As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth >>>> of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. >>>> Relevance doesn't enter into it. >>> >>> You are simply ignoring the word semantic. >> >> How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property. >> >>>> You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused >>>> to state what that definition actually is. >>>> >>> >>> semantic (adjective) >>> of or relating to meaning in language >>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic >> >> That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition. > > that is 100% of all of what I mean. Then what you mean is too vague to be useful. >> If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a >> mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w. >> >>> entail (verb) >>> to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. >>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail >>> >>> [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. >>> >>> "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" >> >> And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted >> simply by compositionally combining their parts > > Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive. 'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate about it. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 14:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rh8l$1g8rb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646462 |
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the
>>>>>>>>>>> sentneces
>>>>>>>>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an
>>>>>>>>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified
>>>>>>>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that
>>>>>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is
>>>>>>>>> outside the scope of the model itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
>>>>>>>> integrated into the formal system and its formal
>>>>>>>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
>>>>>>>> cannot possibly work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't
>>>>>>> even mention the POE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A concrete example of the new total to the thread
>>>>>> Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a coherent sentence of English.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a
>>>>>>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is
>>>>>>> an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
>>>>>> fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
>>>>>> a separate thing outside of the formal system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you
>>>>> might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not
>>>>> correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or
>>>>> another since that is an empirical question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly
>>>> discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment]
>>>> is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is
>>>> inherently correct.
>>>
>>> That's simply a baseless assertion.
>>
>> It is an assertion that proves itself true entirely
>> on the basis of the meaning of its words.
>>
>> Fully integrated into the formal system and not
>> in a separate model outside of the system is the
>> difference between proof theoretic semantics and
>> truth conditional semantics. That is very difficult
>> for people that only know model theory and that
>> is only one half of what I said.
>>
>>> And you still haven't explained what you mean by 'semantic
>>> entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic entailment]'.
>>> Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose.
>>>
>>
>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
>> anything besides a cat that is not alive?
>>
>>>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
>>>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
>>>>>>>> inherently impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
>>>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
>>>>>> each word means then you can't get it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and
>>>>> they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look
>>>>> at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that
>>>>> their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going
>>>>> to give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It puts an enormous amount of information into very
>>>> few words.
>>>
>>> It puts no information into very few words because the words
>>> themselves are undefined.
>>>
>>
>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
>> anything besides a cat that is not alive?
>
> Again with the decorative brackets...
>
> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
>
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
> When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
> that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
>
That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
normal rules.
>>>>>>>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
>>>>>>>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
>>>>>>>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My system requires that the meaning of the words
>>>>>>>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
>>>>>>>> are unrelated thus there is no proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does
>>>>>>> semantically entail Q in this example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What details about the composition of the Moon
>>>>>> are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth
>>>>> of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent.
>>>>> Relevance doesn't enter into it.
>>>>
>>>> You are simply ignoring the word semantic.
>>>
>>> How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property.
>>>
>>>>> You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused
>>>>> to state what that definition actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> semantic (adjective)
>>>> of or relating to meaning in language
>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
>>>
>>> That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
>>
>> that is 100% of all of what I mean.
>
> Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
>
cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
>>> If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
>>> mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
>>>
>>>> entail (verb)
>>>> to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
>>>>
>>>> [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
>>>>
>>>> "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
>>>
>>> And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
>>> simply by compositionally combining their parts
>>
>> Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
>
> 'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little bit
> about how English word formation works before you pontificate about it.
>
> André
>
"dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
"semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
of semantic + entailment
"lame duck" is a figure-of-speech that has an assigned
idiomatic meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 14:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rln5$1fi9d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646464 |
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
> On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
>>> anything besides a cat that is not alive?
>>
>> Again with the decorative brackets...
>>
>> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
>>
>
> The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
> entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
> That is the normal way that meaning always works.
>
> The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
> has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
> is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying compositionality.
>> When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
>> that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
>>
>
> That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
> normal rules.
It doesn't break the normal rules. It follows the normal rules of
compounds which treat compounds as distinct lexical entries which have
their own definitions which may or may not be related to any of the
meanings of their constituent words.
>>>>> semantic (adjective)
>>>>> of or relating to meaning in language
>>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
>>>>
>>>> That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
>>>
>>> that is 100% of all of what I mean.
>>
>> Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
>>
>
> cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
Not according to my definition of 'semantic's.
And now you're using a different set of decorative brackets.
>>>> If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
>>>> mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
>>>>
>>>>> entail (verb)
>>>>> to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
>>>>>
>>>>> [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
>>>>>
>>>>> "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
>>>>
>>>> And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
>>>> simply by compositionally combining their parts
>>>
>>> Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
>>
>> 'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little
>> bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate
>> about it.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> "dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
>
> "semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
> of semantic + entailment
'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so
the compositional meaning is hardly unambiguous, If I take the most
obvious (to me) definitions, then semantic entailment would mean an
entailment stemming from the truth values of the propositions involved,
and by that definition the principle of explosion most definitely counts
as a semantic entailment. You claim otherwise, so clearly you mean
something different than I do when you say 'semantic entailment'. That's
why people keep asking you to define your terms and not just to say its
meaning comes from the meanings of its parts.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 16:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rn35$1i68l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646467 |
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
>>>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
>>>> anything besides a cat that is not alive?
>>>
>>> Again with the decorative brackets...
>>>
>>> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
>>>
>>
>> The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
>> entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
>> That is the normal way that meaning always works.
>>
>> The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
>> has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
>> is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
>
> And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
> defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
> individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
> impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
> compositionality.
>
I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
>>> When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
>>> that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
>>>
>>
>> That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
>> normal rules.
>
> It doesn't break the normal rules. It follows the normal rules of
> compounds which treat compounds as distinct lexical entries which have
> their own definitions which may or may not be related to any of the
> meanings of their constituent words.
>
You are confused. Compounds are bed + room becomes bedroom.
>>>>>> semantic (adjective)
>>>>>> of or relating to meaning in language
>>>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
>>>>
>>>> that is 100% of all of what I mean.
>>>
>>> Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
>>>
>>
>> cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
>
> Not according to my definition of 'semantic's.
>
Sure when you define semantics to be something other than
what it inherently is to can get quite confused.
> And now you're using a different set of decorative brackets.
>
The conventional way of specifying {semantic meaning}
compared with "literal string".
>>>>> If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
>>>>> mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
>>>>>
>>>>>> entail (verb)
>>>>>> to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
>>>>>
>>>>> And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
>>>>> simply by compositionally combining their parts
>>>>
>>>> Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
>>>
>>> 'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little
>>> bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> "dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
>>
>> "semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
>> of semantic + entailment
>
> 'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so
I already have been through this too many times it seems
that you only intend on being disagreeable.
> the compositional meaning is hardly unambiguous, If I take the most
> obvious (to me) definitions, then semantic entailment would mean an
> entailment stemming from the truth values of the propositions involved,
> and by that definition the principle of explosion most definitely counts
> as a semantic entailment. You claim otherwise, so clearly you mean
> something different than I do when you say 'semantic entailment'. That's
> why people keep asking you to define your terms and not just to say its
> meaning comes from the meanings of its parts.
>
> André
>
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 21:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rod1$2bnm$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646469 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > > On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote: [ .... ] > > And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of > > defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The > > individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it > > impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying > > compositionality. > I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't > understand that so I defined what base meanings are > and you didn't understand that so I gave you the > base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased > them. You're just prevaricating. [ .... ] > >> "semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning > >> of semantic + entailment > > 'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so > I already have been through this too many times it seems > that you only intend on being disagreeable. You haven't. You've been continually evasive over many exchanges of posts, being unwilling (or unable) to define what you mean specifically by "semantic entailment". Personally, I don't believe you have a coherent definition - just you think it impresses people when you use big abstract words. Well, it doesn't impress, it just irritates everybody who does know the true meaning, and it impedes communication, which is likely your aim. > > the compositional meaning is hardly unambiguous, If I take the most > > obvious (to me) definitions, then semantic entailment would mean an > > entailment stemming from the truth values of the propositions involved, > > and by that definition the principle of explosion most definitely counts > > as a semantic entailment. You claim otherwise, so clearly you mean > > something different than I do when you say 'semantic entailment'. That's > > why people keep asking you to define your terms and not just to say its > > meaning comes from the meanings of its parts. So, how about finally saying precisely what you mean by "semantic entailment"? It is clearly different from what other people mean by it. > > André > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 16:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rp5i$1iono$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646473 |
On 7/10/2026 4:32 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> I already have been through this too many times it seems >> that you only intend on being disagreeable. > > You haven't. You've been continually evasive over many exchanges of > posts, being unwilling (or unable) to define what you mean specifically > by "semantic entailment". > semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" --------------------------------------------------------- semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" --------------------------------------------------------- semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" --------------------------------------------------------- semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" --------------------------------------------------------- -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 16:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rsji$1fi9d$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646469 |
On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote:
> On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>>>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
>>>>> anything besides a cat that is not alive?
>>>>
>>>> Again with the decorative brackets...
>>>>
>>>> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
>>> entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
>>> That is the normal way that meaning always works.
>>>
>>> The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
>>> has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
>>> is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
>>
>> And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
>> defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
>> individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
>> impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
>> compositionality.
>>
>
> I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
> understand that so I defined what base meanings are
> and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
> base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
> them.
Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave was
too vague to be useful which was pointed out.
You claim to want to publish your work. I guarantee you that you will
never get anything accepted by a reputable journal if you don't provide
*precise* definitions of your terms. You may as well start now. Consider
it practice.
>>>> When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
>>>> that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
>>> normal rules.
>>
>> It doesn't break the normal rules. It follows the normal rules of
>> compounds which treat compounds as distinct lexical entries which have
>> their own definitions which may or may not be related to any of the
>> meanings of their constituent words.
>>
>
> You are confused. Compounds are bed + room becomes bedroom.
Yes, 'bedroom' is a compound. So is 'lame duck'. The presence or absence
of a space has nothing to do with whether something is a compound.
English usually retains spaces; German does not. That's a purely
orthographic issue.
And 'bedroom' has a specific meaning which isn't determined in a purely
compositional manner either. You wouldn't normally say 'the salon has
enough bedroom to fit my bed' even though that would seem to be
allowable by compositional principles.
>>>>>>> semantic (adjective)
>>>>>>> of or relating to meaning in language
>>>>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> that is 100% of all of what I mean.
>>>>
>>>> Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
>>
>> Not according to my definition of 'semantic's.
>>
>
> Sure when you define semantics to be something other than
> what it inherently is to can get quite confused.
Talking about what it is 'inherently' is no more defined than its 'base
meaning' is. What's clear is that you and I have different views on what
semantics is. What's not clear is what your view actually is because you
refuse to define it.
You seem to be under the impression that the way you understand the term
is somehow its inherent or base meaning. You need to consider the
possibility that your usage is in fact the minority.
>> And now you're using a different set of decorative brackets.
>>
>
> The conventional way of specifying {semantic meaning}
> compared with "literal string".
>
>>>>>> If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
>>>>>> mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> entail (verb)
>>>>>>> to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
>>>>>>> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And again you're thinking that English compounds can be
>>>>>> interpreted simply by compositionally combining their parts
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
>>>>
>>>> 'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little
>>>> bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate
>>>> about it.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> "dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
>>>
>>> "semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
>>> of semantic + entailment
>>
>> 'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so
>
> I already have been through this too many times it seems
> that you only intend on being disagreeable.
That's simply false. You might have discussed it, but you have never
*adequately* discussed it. The number of times you repeat something has
no bearing on its clarity or adequacy as an explanation.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 23:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112sijq$1p6u3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646484 |
On 7/10/2026 5:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean >>>>>> anything besides a cat that is not alive? >>>>> >>>>> Again with the decorative brackets... >>>>> >>>>> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The meaning of two words combined that is constructed >>>> entirely from the meaning of each individual words. >>>> That is the normal way that meaning always works. >>>> >>>> The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that >>>> has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words >>>> is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art. >>> >>> And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of >>> defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The >>> individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it >>> impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying >>> compositionality. >>> >> >> I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't >> understand that so I defined what base meanings are >> and you didn't understand that so I gave you the >> base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased >> them. > > Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave was > too vague to be useful which was pointed out. > I am defining a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy that requires a base case. That you simply don't "believe in" a base case seems to end this aspect of the conversation. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 06:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112td63$21u0p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646487 |
On 2026-07-10 22:59, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 5:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean >>>>>>> anything besides a cat that is not alive? >>>>>> >>>>>> Again with the decorative brackets... >>>>>> >>>>>> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The meaning of two words combined that is constructed >>>>> entirely from the meaning of each individual words. >>>>> That is the normal way that meaning always works. >>>>> >>>>> The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that >>>>> has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words >>>>> is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art. >>>> >>>> And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of >>>> defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The >>>> individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it >>>> impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying >>>> compositionality. >>>> >>> >>> I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't >>> understand that so I defined what base meanings are >>> and you didn't understand that so I gave you the >>> base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased >>> them. >> >> Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave was >> too vague to be useful which was pointed out. >> > > I am defining a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy that > requires a base case. That you simply don't "believe in" a base > case seems to end this aspect of the conversation. Things might require a base in your knowledge ontology, but you haven't provided that ontology so you can't simply refer to the base meaning and expect people to know what you have decided serves as the base meaning in your ontology. And there is no reason to assume that your ontology works the same way that natural language does. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 20:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112updj$2f9ob$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646494 |
On 7/11/2026 7:33 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 22:59, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 5:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean >>>>>>>> anything besides a cat that is not alive? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again with the decorative brackets... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The meaning of two words combined that is constructed >>>>>> entirely from the meaning of each individual words. >>>>>> That is the normal way that meaning always works. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that >>>>>> has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words >>>>>> is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art. >>>>> >>>>> And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context >>>>> of defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The >>>>> individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it >>>>> impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying >>>>> compositionality. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't >>>> understand that so I defined what base meanings are >>>> and you didn't understand that so I gave you the >>>> base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased >>>> them. >>> >>> Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave >>> was too vague to be useful which was pointed out. >>> >> >> I am defining a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy that >> requires a base case. That you simply don't "believe in" a base >> case seems to end this aspect of the conversation. > > Things might require a base in your knowledge ontology, but you haven't > provided that ontology so you can't simply refer to the base meaning and > expect people to know what you have decided serves as the base meaning > in your ontology. And there is no reason to assume that your ontology > works the same way that natural language does. > > André > I cannot possibly provide any aspect of any knowledge ontology to anyone that has the opinion that the terms of this art are vacuous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 10:45 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112ssbe$1rlj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646444 |
On 10/07/2026 17:51, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >> >> All those relations are translated into placements in an >> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >> >> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. > > What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model > corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the > scope of the model itself. You should be careful with the word "model". It has many different and even opposite meanings. In everyday language tyra Banks is a model, and so is Opel Astra. For a physicist a theory is a model of the world; for a logician the model is or is not a model of the theory, thouhg usually other, more mathematica models are more useful to them. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112uoga$2f1qu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646489 |
On 7/11/2026 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 10/07/2026 17:51, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>> >>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>> >>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >> >> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model >> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the >> scope of the model itself. > > You should be careful with the word "model". It has many different and > even opposite meanings. In everyday language tyra Banks is a model, and > so is Opel Astra. For a physicist a theory is a model of the world; for > a logician the model is or is not a model of the theory, thouhg usually > other, more mathematica models are more useful to them. > Great insight on this one. Models that are external to the formal system are the problem. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 10:52 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112q8cb$12fin$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646400 |
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>> >>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>> >>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>> >>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>> theoretic semantics. >>> >>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>> is not used? >>> >>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >> >> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >> steps are allowed. > > It is the normal meaning of the base words. There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property. > In English it means that the meaning of the words > of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. That is not among the normal meanings. The nearest is the entailed claim is a logical consequence of the entailing one. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 09:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms |
| Message-ID | <112qu6r$19big$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646435 |
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>> >>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>> >>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>> is not used? >>>> >>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>> >>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>> steps are allowed. >> >> It is the normal meaning of the base words. > > There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which > is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning > is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property. > Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the English word from a dictionary. This is often the first listing. semantic adjective of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail verb to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail Frege's Principle of compositionality the principle that the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules used to combine them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality What is the exact compositional meaning of the term "semantic entailment"? The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic (relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical consequence). In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment is a relationship between statements where the truth of one statement guarantees the truth of another based strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are syntactically constructed. >> In English it means that the meaning of the words >> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. The meaning of cat proves that cats are animals. That "cats are animals" is semantically entailed by the meaning of "cat" -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 11:08 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms |
| Message-ID | <112stmh$1s8cu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646441 |
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>> >>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>> is not used? >>>>> >>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>> >>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>> steps are allowed. >>> >>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >> >> There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which >> is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning >> is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property. > > Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the > English word from a dictionary. This is often the first > listing. Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some dictionaries put the legal meaning first. > semantic adjective > of or relating to meaning in language > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic > > entail verb > to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail You used "entailment" above, not "entail", which can be used as a verb and a noun. They are related but the most common meaning of one seens to be related to a less common meaning of the other. > Frege's Principle of compositionality > the principle that the meaning of a complex expression > is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions > and the rules used to combine them > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality Natural languages follopw that principle to some extent but not always and sometimes use expression where that principle is not even applicable, like you did with your "semantic enlainlment". > What is the exact compositional meaning of the term > "semantic entailment"? > > The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment > comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic > (relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical > consequence). > > In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment > is a relationship between statements where the truth > of one statement guarantees the truth of another based > strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are > syntactically constructed. Seems reasonable but leaves one important detail unanswered: what is the exact meaning of the expression "semantic meaning"? >>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. > The meaning of cat proves that cats are animals. Although it "proves" in the formal sense, it is better to say that the definition specifies. To say that a sentence proves itself is formally correct but pricatically useless. > That "cats are animals" is semantically entailed by the meaning > of "cat" Or is not. There are several possible meanings. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web