Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #641072 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h0sii$29a0r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641610 |
olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: > On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (specifically English) semantics expressed in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Formulae in his system have a syntax. They also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an example >>>>>>>>>>>> of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's simply a >>>>>>>>>>>> stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship between >>>>>>>>>> syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how knowledge >>>>>>>>>> ontologies are represented. So this isn't an example in anyway >>>>>>>>>> relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the >>>>>>>>>>> following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a >>>>>>>>>>> footnote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says >>>>>>>>>>> that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, >>>>>>>>>>> the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: >>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between >>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects of >>>>>>>>>>> thought* >>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing to >>>>>>>>>> do with the relationship between syntax and semantics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths provable — >>>>>>>> it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away every >>>>>>>> sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>> >>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other subjects >>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either empty >>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member is under >>>> another member. >>> >>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general knowledge* >> >> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in terms of >> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt collection of >> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >> define. > Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically > and are rejected as semantically unsound. If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? What consequences does not have? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h18jl$2dlk1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641661 |
On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (specifically English) semantics expressed in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Formulae in his system have a syntax. They also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an example >>>>>>>>>>>>> of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's simply a >>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship between >>>>>>>>>>> syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how knowledge >>>>>>>>>>> ontologies are represented. So this isn't an example in >>>>>>>>>>> anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the >>>>>>>>>>>> following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a >>>>>>>>>>>> footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says >>>>>>>>>>>> that the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, >>>>>>>>>>>> the symbolic expressions) are divided into types, namely: >>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations between >>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects >>>>>>>>>>>> of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing to >>>>>>>>>>> do with the relationship between syntax and semantics. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths provable — >>>>>>>>> it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away >>>>>>>>> every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other subjects >>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either empty >>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member is under >>>>> another member. >>>> >>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general knowledge* >>> >>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in terms of >>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt collection of >>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>> define. > >> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >> and are rejected as semantically unsound. > > If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? > What consequences does not have? > The most famous guy on Formal Languages write this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h3m5c$3cna8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641672 |
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: > On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (specifically English) semantics expressed in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic. Formulae in his system have a syntax. They also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship between >>>>>>>>>>>> syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>> ontologies are represented. So this isn't an example in >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave >>>>>>>>>>>>> the following definition of the "theory of simple types" in >>>>>>>>>>>>> a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which >>>>>>>>>>>>> says that the objects of thought (or, in another >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into >>>>>>>>>>>>> types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, >>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between individuals, properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects >>>>>>>>>>>>> of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing >>>>>>>>>>>> to do with the relationship between syntax and semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths provable — >>>>>>>>>> it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away >>>>>>>>>> every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other subjects >>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either empty >>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member is under >>>>>> another member. >>>>> >>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general knowledge* >>>> >>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in terms of >>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt collection of >>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>>> define. >> >>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >> >> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >> What consequences does not have? > > The most famous guy on Formal Languages write this > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously Don't use the word if you don't know what it means. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h4cng$3jjb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641698 |
On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of logic. Formulae in his system have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. They also have a semantics. The two are very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship between >>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>> ontologies are represented. So this isn't an example in >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following definition of the "theory of simple types" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> says that the objects of thought (or, in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between individuals, properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with the relationship between syntax and semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths provable >>>>>>>>>>> — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away >>>>>>>>>>> every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other subjects >>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either empty >>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member is >>>>>>> under >>>>>>> another member. >>>>>> >>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>> knowledge* >>>>> >>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in terms of >>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt collection of >>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>>>> define. >>> >>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>> >>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>> What consequences does not have? >> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. I just verified with Claude AI that Q <is a necessary consequence of> P does say exactly what I mean. to be able to be encoded as this binary relation P □ Q // Q is a necessary consequence of P >> The most famous guy on Formal Languages write this >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously > > Don't use the word if you don't know what it means. > It was not clear that I was using the term isomorphic correctly until I discussed this with Clause AI. I did not know that they had to be the same type. In the cases where I used the term isomorphic with further details provided then the same type was decision problem instance. In mathematics, an isomorphism is a structure-preserving mapping or morphism between two structures of the same type that can be reversed by an inverse mapping. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h64hu$1av2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641714 |
olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: > On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of logic. Formulae in his system have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. They also have a semantics. The two are very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontologies are represented. So this isn't an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example in anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following definition of the "theory of simple types" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says that the objects of thought (or, in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into types, namely: individuals, properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, relations between individuals, properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with the relationship between syntax and semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths provable >>>>>>>>>>>> — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away >>>>>>>>>>>> every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other >>>>>>>> subjects >>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either empty >>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member is >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>> >>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in terms of >>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt collection of >>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>>>>> define. >>>> >>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>> >>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>> What consequences does not have? > > Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h77i2$bdba$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641735 |
On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: >> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics expressed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of logic. Formulae in his system have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. They also have a semantics. The two are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontologies are represented. So this isn't an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example in anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following definition of the "theory of simple types" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says that the objects of thought (or, in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into types, namely: individuals, properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, relations between individuals, properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths >>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away >>>>>>>>>>>>> every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other >>>>>>>>> subjects >>>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either empty >>>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member is >>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in >>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt >>>>>>> collection of >>>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >>>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>>>>>> define. >>>>> >>>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>>> >>>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>>> What consequences does not have? >> >> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. > > That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". > Is this gibberish nonsense: "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" a member of the body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language? Reject means not a member. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10hjhan$3vd0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641749 |
olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05: > On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: >>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how knowledge ontologies are represented. So this isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example in anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types" in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says that the objects of thought (or, in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into types, namely: individuals, properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, relations between individuals, properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw away >>>>>>>>>>>>>> every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other >>>>>>>>>> subjects >>>>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either >>>>>>>>>> empty >>>>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member >>>>>>>>>> is under >>>>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in >>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt >>>>>>>> collection of >>>>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general knowledge, >>>>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>>>>>>> define. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>>>> >>>>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>>>> What consequences does not have? >>> >>> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. >> >> That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". >> > > Is this gibberish nonsense: "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" > a member of the body of general knowledge that can be > expressed in language? Reject means not a member. Not a memebr of what? You want to accept a circular defintion as symtactically valid so it is a member of the language (which is a set of finite strings). It is also a valid premmise in a proof because it is a definition. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10hk2a0$6amh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641864 |
On 12/13/2025 5:05 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05: >> On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: >>>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how knowledge ontologies are represented. So this isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example in anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types" in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which says that the objects of thought (or, in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are divided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into types, namely: individuals, properties of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, relations between individuals, properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other >>>>>>>>>>> subjects >>>>>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either >>>>>>>>>>> empty >>>>>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member >>>>>>>>>>> is under >>>>>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in >>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt >>>>>>>>> collection of >>>>>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general >>>>>>>>> knowledge, >>>>>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually don't >>>>>>>>> define. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>>>>> What consequences does not have? >>>> >>>> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. >>> >>> That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". >>> >> >> Is this gibberish nonsense: "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" >> a member of the body of general knowledge that can be >> expressed in language? Reject means not a member. > > Not a memebr of what? member of the body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language This is reframing of the philosophical The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ enabling an unequivocal line of demarcation. > You want to accept a circular defintion as > symtactically valid so it is a member of the language (which is > a set of finite strings). It is also a valid premmise in a proof > because it is a definition. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br> reliably computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10holo9$1q2qf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641870 |
On 13/12/2025 17:55, olcott wrote: > On 12/13/2025 5:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05: >>> On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: >>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how knowledge ontologies are represented. So this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't an example in anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple types" in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which says that the objects of thought (or, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divided into types, namely: individuals, properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of individuals, relations between individuals, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other >>>>>>>>>>>> subjects >>>>>>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is either >>>>>>>>>>>> empty >>>>>>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every member >>>>>>>>>>>> is under >>>>>>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in >>>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt >>>>>>>>>> collection of >>>>>>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>> knowledge, >>>>>>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> define. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>>>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>>>>>> What consequences does not have? >>>>> >>>>> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. >>>> >>>> That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". >>> >>> Is this gibberish nonsense: "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" >>> a member of the body of general knowledge that can be >>> expressed in language? Reject means not a member. >> >> Not a memebr of what? > > member of > the body of general knowledge > that can be expressed in language That matters only if it is syntactically valid in that language. Is it? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10hpam0$20glr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641953 |
On 12/15/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 13/12/2025 17:55, olcott wrote: >> On 12/13/2025 5:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05: >>>> On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: >>>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how knowledge ontologies are represented. So this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't an example in anyway relevant to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple types" in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which says that the objects of thought (or, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are divided into types, namely: individuals, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of individuals, relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of other >>>>>>>>>>>>> subjects >>>>>>>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is >>>>>>>>>>>>> either empty >>>>>>>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every >>>>>>>>>>>>> member is under >>>>>>>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in >>>>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt >>>>>>>>>>> collection of >>>>>>>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge, >>>>>>>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually >>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>> define. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>>>>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>>>>>>> What consequences does not have? >>>>>> >>>>>> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. >>>>> >>>>> That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". >>>> >>>> Is this gibberish nonsense: "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" >>>> a member of the body of general knowledge that can be >>>> expressed in language? Reject means not a member. >>> >>> Not a memebr of what? >> >> member of >> the body of general knowledge >> that can be expressed in language > > That matters only if it is syntactically valid in that language. > Is it? > I use Montague Grammar fully integrating semantics directly into the syntax making unprovable in L simply untrue in L. When L is the body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language, then unprovable in L means not a member of this body. LLM systems have an easy time with this, it seems that to everyone everywhere else integrating semantics directly in syntax is not the way they were taught thus seems to be nonsense. LLM systems are not locked in to what they were taught yet can extrapolate on the basis of what they were taught. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br> My 28 year goal has been to make <br> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br> reliably computable.<br><br> This required establishing a new foundation<br>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10hu1qt$3dt0d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641966 |
On 15/12/2025 17:49, olcott wrote: > On 12/15/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 13/12/2025 17:55, olcott wrote: >>> On 12/13/2025 5:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05: >>>>> On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15: >>>>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46: >>>>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems that divide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grammar is called 'Montague Grammar' because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is due to Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of English semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of billions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Human(x). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply a stipulation involving two predicates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not how knowledge ontologies are represented. So >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this isn't an example in anyway relevant to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple types" in a footnote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which says that the objects of thought (or, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are divided into types, namely: individuals, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of individuals, relations between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away every sentence that would have made it incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am merely elaborating the structure of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree of knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined in terms of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other subjects >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of thoughts the system of ALL subjects of thoughts is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either empty >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy where every >>>>>>>>>>>>>> member is under >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another member. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *I have always been referring to the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your condition that ALL objects of thought can be defined in >>>>>>>>>>>> terms of >>>>>>>>>>>> other objects of thought is false about every non-empyt >>>>>>>>>>>> collection of >>>>>>>>>>>> objects of thjought, inluding the entire body of general >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge, >>>>>>>>>>>> unless your system allows circular definitions that actually >>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>> define. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes circular definitions can be defined syntactically >>>>>>>>>>> and are rejected as semantically unsound. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If they are syntactically valid then what does "reject" mean? >>>>>>>>>> What consequences does not have? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does not semantically follow is exactly what I mean. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is quite far from the usual meaning of "reject". >>>>> >>>>> Is this gibberish nonsense: "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" >>>>> a member of the body of general knowledge that can be >>>>> expressed in language? Reject means not a member. >>>> >>>> Not a memebr of what? >>> >>> member of >>> the body of general knowledge >>> that can be expressed in language >> >> That matters only if it is syntactically valid in that language. >> Is it? > > I use Montague Grammar fully integrating > semantics directly into the syntax making > unprovable in L simply untrue in L. > > When L is the body of general knowledge that > can be expressed in language, then unprovable > in L means not a member of this body. > > LLM systems have an easy time with this, it seems > that to everyone everywhere else integrating > semantics directly in syntax is not the way they > were taught thus seems to be nonsense. > > LLM systems are not locked in to what they were > taught yet can extrapolate on the basis of what > they were taught. That does not answer whether "iho iu,78r GYU(UY OPJ OJOJ" is syntactically valid. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10g5pk5$3v398$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641131 |
On 2025-11-25 19:41, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is called >>>>>>>> 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to Richard Montague. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language >>>>>>>> (specifically English) semantics expressed in terms of logic. >>>>>>>> Formulae in his system have a syntax. They also have a >>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of English >>>>>> semantics. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>> >>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an example of 'the >>>> syntax of English semantics'. That's simply a stipulation involving >>>> two predicates. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>> of atomic facts of the world. >> >> But the topic under discussion was the relationship between syntax and >> semantics in Montague Grammar, not how knowledge ontologies are >> represented. So this isn't an example in anyway relevant to the >> discussion. >> >>> *Actually read this, this time* >>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the >>> following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: >>> >>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the >>> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic >>> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties >>> of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such >>> relations >>> >>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects of thought* >>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >> >> >> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing to do with >> the relationship between syntax and semantics. >> >> André >> > > That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure > of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms > of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body > of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded > into a single coherent formal system. > Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5qer$10l9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641135 |
On 11/25/2025 8:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2025-11-25 19:41, olcott wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is fixed! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your >>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar >>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure >>>>>>>>>> syntax. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is called >>>>>>>>> 'Montague Grammar' because it is due to Richard Montague. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language >>>>>>>>> (specifically English) semantics expressed in terms of logic. >>>>>>>>> Formulae in his system have a syntax. They also have a >>>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of English >>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions >>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of Human(x). >>>>> >>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an example of 'the >>>>> syntax of English semantics'. That's simply a stipulation involving >>>>> two predicates. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology >>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set >>>> of atomic facts of the world. >>> >>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship between syntax >>> and semantics in Montague Grammar, not how knowledge ontologies are >>> represented. So this isn't an example in anyway relevant to the >>> discussion. >>> >>>> *Actually read this, this time* >>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the >>>> following definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote: >>>> >>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that >>>> the objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic >>>> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties >>>> of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such >>>> relations >>>> >>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects of thought* >>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought* >>> >>> >>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has nothing to do with >>> the relationship between syntax and semantics. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> That particular theory of types lays out the infrastructure >> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms >> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body >> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be encoded >> into a single coherent formal system. >> > > Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. > > André > It *is* the basic infrastructure of my whole system that you continue to fail to understand. No one can possibly understand any idea until they first understand the essential gist of the idea. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125191522.13@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641139 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > It *is* the basic infrastructure of my whole system > that you continue to fail to understand. Hark, there is infrastructure. Is it cloud-based? Multiple data centres, on several contintents! Farms of GPUs churning away on the Liar Paradox ... -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125182403.579@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641117 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > *Here is a concrete example* > The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a suite with zero bedrooms. Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5p5q$jnr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641122 |
On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> *Here is a concrete example* >> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) > > That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a > suite with zero bedrooms. > > Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? > You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125185949.537@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641127 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> *Here is a concrete example* >>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >> >> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >> suite with zero bedrooms. >> >> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? > > You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous > paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, made your mark and put it behind you? -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5qra$15e8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641141 |
On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>> >>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>> >>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >> >> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. > > Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, > made your mark and put it behind you? > Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <s5uuntgfwr6nkK8DoXuVQkn4tkQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641144 |
Le 26/11/2025 à 04:06, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> >>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>> >>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>> >>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >> >> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >> made your mark and put it behind you? >> > > Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125191649.212@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641145 |
On 2025-11-26, Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: > Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad. Not really. He plonked someone this Oct 27, a Monday. I publicly predicted he'd reply to that person by Halowe'en. The prediction came true Tuesday, the 28th. He only has a "mental kill file", to borrow from Kenny McCormack of comp.unix.shell. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web