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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 16:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <11368mu$n1a7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646695 |
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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" >>>>>> >>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>> >>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it >>>>> is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' >>>>> necessarily true? >>>> >>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>> >>> How does it fail to show this? >> >> There is not one damned thing about birds that >> has any damn thing to do with lizards. > > Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are lizards' is > a necessary consequence of the contradiction which serves as a premise > You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. When I say the word semantic do you only hear nonsense syllables like Same Ticks? -- 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 | 2026-07-14 15:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <11369tp$nbeo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646699 |
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>> >>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and >>>>>> (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' >>>>>> necessarily true? >>>>> >>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>> >>>> How does it fail to show this? >>> >>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >> >> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are lizards' >> is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which serves as a premise >> > > You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH > WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. I fully explained that in the post you responded to. The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive does not make it false. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 16:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136a3v$nd0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646702 |
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and >>>>>>> (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are >>>>>>> lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>> >>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>> >>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>> >>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>> >>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are lizards' >>> is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which serves as a >>> premise >>> >> >> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. > > I fully explained that in the post you responded to. > > The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive does > not make it false. > > André > There are no facts about birds that specify facts about lizard dip shit. -- 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 | 2026-07-14 16:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136cb0$nbeo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646704 |
On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are >>>>>>>> dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds >>>>>>>> are lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>>> >>>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>>> >>>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>> serves as a premise >>>> >>> >>> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >>> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. >> >> I fully explained that in the post you responded to. >> >> The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive >> does not make it false. >> >> André >> > > There are no facts about birds that specify > facts about lizard dip shit. So what? The question was whether or not 'birds are lizards' is semantically entailed by ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)), not whether facts about birds specify facts about lizards. What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* semantically entail that birds are lizards? André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 17:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136cmk$o5sq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646706 |
On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are >>>>>>>>> dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds >>>>>>>>> are lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>>>> >>>>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>>>> >>>>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>> serves as a premise >>>>> >>>> >>>> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >>>> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. >>> >>> I fully explained that in the post you responded to. >>> >>> The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive >>> does not make it false. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> There are no facts about birds that specify >> facts about lizard dip shit. > > So what? What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic? Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you. Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic Do you know why the fuck it was created? > The question was whether or not 'birds are lizards' is > semantically entailed by ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that > cats are dogs)), not whether facts about birds specify facts about lizards. > It is what the fuck semantics means. > What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not > the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* > semantically entail that birds are lizards? > > 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 16:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136e7b$nbeo$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646707 |
On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes >>>>>>>>>> 'birds are lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>>>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>>> serves as a premise >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >>>>> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. >>>> >>>> I fully explained that in the post you responded to. >>>> >>>> The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive >>>> does not make it false. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> There are no facts about birds that specify >>> facts about lizard dip shit. >> >> So what? > > What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic? Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same definition of 'semantic' that you provided. > Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you. > Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly useful and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been levelled against it and paraconsistent logics in general. Importantly, neither Gödel nor the Halting Problem were framed in terms of relevance logic. They were framed in terms of classical logic. So if you want to argue against them you need to stick to classical logic. > Do you know why the fuck it was created? > >> The question was whether or not 'birds are lizards' is semantically >> entailed by ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are >> dogs)), not whether facts about birds specify facts about lizards. >> > > It is what the fuck semantics means. No idea what 'it' refers to in that sentence. >> What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is >> not the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* >> semantically entail that birds are lizards? You didn't answer the above. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 17:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136eq9$onc6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646709 |
On 7/14/2026 5:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes >>>>>>>>>>> 'birds are lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>>>>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>>>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>>>> serves as a premise >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >>>>>> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. >>>>> >>>>> I fully explained that in the post you responded to. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive >>>>> does not make it false. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are no facts about birds that specify >>>> facts about lizard dip shit. >>> >>> So what? >> >> What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic? > > Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same > definition of 'semantic' that you provided. > You stupidly are not. >> Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you. >> Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is? >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic > > Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly useful > and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been levelled > against it and paraconsistent logics in general. > paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic system that prevents contradictions from being formed. They don't "tolerate" contradictions they beat them to death. That is the same nonsense as calling ZFC paraconsistent set theory. I am trying to explain the architectural details of how truth itself is made easily computable and you disagree with everything I say. -- 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 | 2026-07-14 17:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136f63$nbeo$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646711 |
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 5:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes >>>>>>>>>>>> 'birds are lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>>>>>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>>>>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>>>>> serves as a premise >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >>>>>>> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. >>>>>> >>>>>> I fully explained that in the post you responded to. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive >>>>>> does not make it false. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no facts about birds that specify >>>>> facts about lizard dip shit. >>>> >>>> So what? >>> >>> What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic? >> >> Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same >> definition of 'semantic' that you provided. >> > > You stupidly are not. I am. Perhaps you meant something else rather than the overly vague definition you provided. If you answer the question you keep skipping it might clarify things. I repeat it below: What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* semantically entail that birds are lizards? >>> Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you. >>> Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic >> >> Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly >> useful and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been >> levelled against it and paraconsistent logics in general. >> > > paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic > system that prevents contradictions from being formed. Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though they can in some instances). André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 19:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136kg2$q6bb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646712 |
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 5:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When P and Q are in English then: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes 'birds are lizards' necessarily true? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting to really try so thanks for that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How does it fail to show this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is not one damned thing about birds that >>>>>>>>>> has any damn thing to do with lizards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>>>>>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>>>>>> serves as a premise >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH >>>>>>>> WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I fully explained that in the post you responded to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fact that you find the principle of explosion >>>>>>> counterintuitive does not make it false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> André >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no facts about birds that specify >>>>>> facts about lizard dip shit. >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>> >>>> What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic? >>> >>> Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same >>> definition of 'semantic' that you provided. >>> >> >> You stupidly are not. > > I am. Perhaps you meant something else rather than the overly vague > definition you provided. If you answer the question you keep skipping it > might clarify things. I repeat it below: > > What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not > the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* > semantically entail that birds are lizards? > >>>> Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you. >>>> Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is? >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic >>> >>> Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly >>> useful and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been >>> levelled against it and paraconsistent logics in general. >>> >> >> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. > > Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow > contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though they > can in some instances). > > André > paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. -- 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 | 2026-07-14 18:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136l0p$q8fc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646714 |
On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: >>> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >>> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. >> >> Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow >> contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though >> they can in some instances). >> >> André >> > > paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating > and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example: (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal. is a valid argument in relevance logic. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 20:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136nee$qs93$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646716 |
On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: > >>>> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >>>> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. >>> >>> Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow >>> contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though >>> they can in some instances). >>> >>> André >>> >> >> paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating >> and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. > > You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance > logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, but > it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to explosion. In > some cases, however, it does. For example: > > (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal. > > is a valid argument in relevance logic. > > André > Different sources have different views yet that seems to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic entailment on the basis of the meaning of words. There is nothing about (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) that semantically entails anything at all. My single system correctly handles the infinite set of all this crap. My system is not some weak bullshit that fails on simple cases. -- 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 | 2026-07-14 19:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136oah$quld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646717 |
On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: >> >>>>> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >>>>> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. >>>> >>>> Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow >>>> contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though >>>> they can in some instances). >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating >>> and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. >> >> You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance >> logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, but >> it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to explosion. >> In some cases, however, it does. For example: >> >> (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal. >> >> is a valid argument in relevance logic. >> >> André >> > > Different sources have different views yet that seems > to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why > you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic > entailment on the basis of the meaning of words. So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're introducing 'full semantic entailment'. I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning for that expression simply by combining the meanings of the words. Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly vague. That means they are both open to a wide range of interpretations, and on the interpretations I am giving them (which are perfectly consistent with your vague definitions), any statement is semantically entailed by a contradiction. You're really going to have to narrow down what *you* mean by this expression if you want to claim otherwise. > There is nothing about > (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) > that semantically entails anything at all. It semantically entails anything that you want it to entail. That's how contradictions work. > My single system correctly handles the infinite > set of all this crap. My system is not some > weak bullshit that fails on simple cases. Your systems is too ill-defined to handle anything at all. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 20:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136pcu$rago$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646718 |
On 7/14/2026 8:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >>>>>> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. >>>>> >>>>> Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They >>>>> allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions >>>>> (though they can in some instances). >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating >>>> and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. >>> >>> You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance >>> logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, >>> but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to >>> explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example: >>> >>> (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal. >>> >>> is a valid argument in relevance logic. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Different sources have different views yet that seems >> to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why >> you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic >> entailment on the basis of the meaning of words. > > So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're introducing > 'full semantic entailment'. Only because we were forced to digress to the less than full semantic entailment of relevance logic. > I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning > for that expression simply by combining the meanings of the words. > > Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly I will give you the very dumbed down partial definition. The meaning of the words of an expression of language forces the meaning of the words of another expression of language to be true. "I own a pet cat" forces the meaning of "I own a pet" to be true. -- 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 | 2026-07-14 20:23 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136qv8$rn2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646719 |
On 2026-07-14 19:56, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 8:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >>>>>>> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They >>>>>> allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions >>>>>> (though they can in some instances). >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating >>>>> and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. >>>> >>>> You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance >>>> logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, >>>> but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to >>>> explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example: >>>> >>>> (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal. >>>> >>>> is a valid argument in relevance logic. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Different sources have different views yet that seems >>> to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why >>> you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic >>> entailment on the basis of the meaning of words. >> >> So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're >> introducing 'full semantic entailment'. > > Only because we were forced to digress to the > less than full semantic entailment of relevance > logic. That certainly doesn't clarify the purpose of 'full'. In what sense does relevance logic not deal with 'full' semantic entailment whereas yours does? >> I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning for that expression simply >> by combining the meanings of the words. >> >> Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly > > I will give you the very dumbed down partial > definition. Nobody here is interested in a dumbed down or partial definition. Everyone who is pressing you on this point wants a *precise* definition > The meaning of the words of an > expression of language forces the meaning > of the words of another expression of language > to be true. The meanings of the words in 'all men are mortal and no man is mortal' *does* force the meaning of any other expression of language to be true. Whatever it is that you think you are conveying is not being conveyed. André > "I own a pet cat" forces the meaning of > "I own a pet" to be true. > > > -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 21:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1136rqe$rsb5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646723 |
On 7/14/2026 9:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-14 19:56, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 8:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic >>>>>>>> system that prevents contradictions from being formed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They >>>>>>> allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions >>>>>>> (though they can in some instances). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> André >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating >>>>>> and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency. >>>>> >>>>> You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance >>>>> logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, >>>>> but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to >>>>> explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example: >>>>> >>>>> (all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal. >>>>> >>>>> is a valid argument in relevance logic. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Different sources have different views yet that seems >>>> to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why >>>> you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic >>>> entailment on the basis of the meaning of words. >>> >>> So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're >>> introducing 'full semantic entailment'. >> >> Only because we were forced to digress to the >> less than full semantic entailment of relevance >> logic. > > That certainly doesn't clarify the purpose of 'full'. In what sense does > relevance logic not deal with 'full' semantic entailment whereas yours > does? > >>> I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning for that expression simply >>> by combining the meanings of the words. >>> >>> Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly >> >> I will give you the very dumbed down partial >> definition. > > Nobody here is interested in a dumbed down or partial definition. > Everyone who is pressing you on this point wants a *precise* definition > >> The meaning of the words of an >> expression of language forces the meaning >> of the words of another expression of language >> to be true. > > The meanings of the words in 'all men are mortal and no man is mortal' Forces the empty set you dip shit liar. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 15:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <11362pu$kcbg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646661 |
On 7/14/2026 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2026 12:27 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-14 11:20, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2026 10:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2026 18:52, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
>>>>>> element of my whole system. When I explain what this
>>>>>> meaning people only disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims
>>>>> about
>>>>> 'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it
>>>> doesn't
>>>> include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
>>>> exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> None of the issues that arise in math can possibly
>>> exist in this system.
>>
>> That's simply a baseless assertion.
>>
>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
>>> This is the only inference steps allowed.
>>>
>>> PA ⊢ G is simply false.
>>
>> Gödel would agree. He would also agree that PA ⊢ ¬G is false.
>>
>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q is simply false.
>>
>> This doesn't follow from the definition you give above. Q *is*
>> semantically entailed by (P ∧ ¬P).
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Only if you stupidly ignore what {semantically entailed}
> means. When you plug English words into P and Q this
> becomes completely clear.
On 7/13/2026 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> Claims without supporting evidence cannot
> be correctly accepted as true.
Explain exactly which step in the principle of explosion does this.
Failure to do so will be taken as your admission that the principle of
explosion is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 20:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1138nj2$1dvfs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646656 |
On 14/07/2026 18:20, olcott wrote: > (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q is simply false. Unless the system contains no statements "⊢ (P ∧ ¬P)" then I correctly infer that there are no axioms. If there is an axiom A along with such statements then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ A which is not false in that case. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 15:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1138rej$1fjsj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646769 |
On 7/15/2026 2:38 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 14/07/2026 18:20, olcott wrote: >> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q is simply false. > > Unless the system contains no statements "⊢ (P ∧ ¬P)" then I correctly > infer that there are no axioms. If there is an axiom A along with such > statements then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ A which is not false in that case. > > All of propositional logic it totally tossed out on its ass. If a propositional variable does not have an English statement for meaning then it counts as meaningless. <semantic entailment encoded syntactically> cannot possibly operate on raw Booleans. It must have words with meanings or an atomic sentence basis. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 16:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1138s0k$1e1eg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646774 |
On 7/15/2026 4:44 PM, olcott wrote: > All of propositional logic it totally tossed out > on its ass. If a propositional variable does not > have an English statement for meaning then it counts > as meaningless. That means you don't understand how propositional logic works. For example, you won't be able to find any arbitrary statements P and Q such that P is true and P ∨ Q is false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 10:51 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term |
| Message-ID | <1134ppk$7brh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646600 |
On 13/07/2026 19:25, olcott wrote: > On 7/13/2026 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 12/07/2026 19:10, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2026 04:00, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic >>>>> meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. >>>>> I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no >>>>> such thing can possibly exist. >>>> >>>> If you know you can't do it you should instead try something else. >>>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition >>> >>> I have done it correctly many times. >> >> If even correct trying does not give the desired results there is >> no point to keep trying. >> >> Of course, once trying, correct or incorrect, would give the desired >> result, there still would be no point to keep trying. > > The notion of semantic entailment is the most important > element of my whole system. When I explain what this > meaning people only disagree. Then you should have a good definition for it. Otherwise it will not have a system with semantic entailment as an important element. People tend to disagree whenever you claim to explain anything you don't actually explain. Though it is hard to disagree about the elements of a non-existing system. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web