Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #641406 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 17:53 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:07 -0600
Re: A new category of thought dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:19 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 16:55 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:04 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:49 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:26 -0600
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:46 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:52 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-12-05 19:57 -0700
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 21:18 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:01 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:40 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:47 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:16 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:04 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 09:55 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:43 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 22:16 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 21:50 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-07 05:32 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-07 15:49 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:38 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 07:32 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 07:37 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:55 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 17:15 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 21:50 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:26 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:40 -0500
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:47 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 19:18 -0500
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 19:00 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 20:34 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:57 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:16 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 22:22 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:50 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:30 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 10:05 -0600
Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:14 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 07:07 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:41 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:57 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:30 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:53 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:33 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:42 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:03 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 06:12 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 07:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:18 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 20:23 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:51 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 16:27 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:53 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:17 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:35 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:10 -0500
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:49 -0800
Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:50 -0800
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:59 +0000
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-01 23:11 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 21:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 22:44 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:19 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:21 -0500
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:13 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 19:50 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 13:02 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:15 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 10:53 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:00 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:41 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 09:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:48 +0200
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-05 09:30 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 10:41 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:37 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:24 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:39 +0200
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 08:59 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-09 15:15 +0200
Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:04 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-14 13:02 +0200
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:39 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 20:01 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 17:37 +0000
Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 13:44 -0600
Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600 |
| Subject | A new category of thought |
| Message-ID | <10gf76d$3ha5v$1@dont-email.me> |
Any expression of language that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is a semantic tautology. I also call this Analytic(Olcott) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/ Two Dogmas of Empiricism Willard Van Orman Quine https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf It overcomes Quine's objections by encoding basic facts of the world as Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates organized as a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy In information science, an ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming, and definitions of the categories, properties, and relations between the concepts... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science) That is essentially Kurt Gödel's "theory of simple types" By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 -- 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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251129094642.874@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641406 |
On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > Any expression of language that is proven true entirely > on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is > a semantic tautology. A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. For instance "P or not P". A deductive argument is tautological; its deduction is true for all interpretations of the propositions it contains, in all possible universes of discourse. You would need to have tremendous stature in logic to be able to dictate a redefinition of a deeply entrenched, standard term. -- 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 | 2025-11-29 12:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gfcpa$3ji8m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641412 |
On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >> a semantic tautology. > > A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all > combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, > which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. > I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. I am defining a new thing under the Sun. *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* Any expression of language that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. This is very close to the same thing. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology > For instance "P or not P". > > A deductive argument is tautological; its deduction is true > for all interpretations of the propositions it contains, > in all possible universes of discourse. > > You would need to have tremendous stature in logic to > be able to dictate a redefinition of a deeply entrenched, > standard term. > Or I could simply prove that I am correct on the basis of the meaning of my words, thus anyone disagreeing is merely proving that they are too full of themselves. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-29 13:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10gfdg4$3jp83$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641415 |
On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>> a semantic tautology. >> >> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >> > > I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. > I am defining a new thing under the Sun. > > *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* > Any expression of language that is proven true entirely > on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for "definition".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-01 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10gkh9u$1g4bi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641416 |
On 29/11/2025 18:19, dbush wrote: > On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>> a semantic tautology. >>> >>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>> >> >> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >> >> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. > > So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for > "definition". I think not. I think it's an analytic framework for language. I expect it's standard. I never got told of it at university but, knowing what I know now, its description sounds like it's just a way of saying "I do formal analysis of language continua via something resembling factorisation" because, well, what else would a semantic tautology be? Frankly I think Olcott is careful to say only definitely true things and he is already aware that lambda calculus has been used for language analysis for a very long time. He ought to be informed that computational linguists know about it, what it can do, how to use it to analyse, how to form tautologies wrt. relations between strings and models, etc. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-01 11:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gkhqv$1h2gm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641528 |
On 12/1/2025 10:55 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 29/11/2025 18:19, dbush wrote: >> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>> >>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>> >>> >>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>> >>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >> >> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for >> "definition". > > I think not. I think it's an analytic framework for language. I expect > it's standard. I never got told of it at university but, knowing what I > know now, its description sounds like it's just a way of saying "I do > formal analysis of language continua via something resembling > factorisation" because, well, what else would a semantic tautology be? > > Frankly I think Olcott is careful to say only definitely true things and > he is already aware that lambda calculus has been used for language > analysis for a very long time. He ought to be informed that > computational linguists know about it, what it can do, how to use it to > analyse, how to form tautologies wrt. relations between strings and > models, etc. > That is a good analysis. I have switched to Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates within a type hierarchy such that semantics is fully integrated into syntax making unprovable merely mean not a member of this formal system. -- 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 | 2025-12-02 11:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gmcnm$25uic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641416 |
dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: > On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>> a semantic tautology. >>> >>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>> >> >> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >> >> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. > > So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for > "definition". A definition gives a new word for something. A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some effort to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-02 09:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gn0fh$2dnei$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641562 |
On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: > dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>> >>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>> >>> >>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>> >>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >> >> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for >> "definition". > > A definition gives a new word for something. > > A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some effort > to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. > A semantic tautology might be considered the complete definition of a a word by providing the complete definition of every word in this definition recursively all the way down until every one of these words is completely defined. Also it is very important that the formal language fully integrates every aspect of semantics directly in the syntax. Much of the issues with formal systems is that the model can get out-of-sync with the formal system. When the model is one-and-the-same as the formal system then getting out-of-sync is not possible. To eliminate ambiguity with the sense meanings of words each lexeme has its own GUID. A lexeme is the fundamental unit of meaning in a language, representing a single word or a group of words that convey a specific concept. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-linguistics/lexeme -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-04 08:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gs6ro$c9o6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641570 |
On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions, >>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for >>>>>> "definition". >>>>> >>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>> >>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some effort >>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>> >>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>> >>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>> in language. >>> >>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>> >> >> It does not. > > For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the > basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. > > That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. 2.2 Truthmakers for Negative Truths https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#TruMakForNegTru -- 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 | 2025-12-05 10:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gu6gl$15umm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641613 |
olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: > On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for >>>>>>> "definition". >>>>>> >>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>> >>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some >>>>>> effort >>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>> >>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>> >>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>> in language. >>>> >>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>> It does not. >> >> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. > That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. > They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of the words but does not define anything and therefore that there are semantic tautologies that don't define anything, retracting your earlier statement. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 11:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gv4bk$1jeqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641620 |
On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term for >>>>>>>> "definition". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some >>>>>>> effort >>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>> >>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>> >>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>> in language. >>>>> >>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. > >>>> It does not. >>> >>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. > >> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. > > Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square > is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of > the words but does not define anything In other words you are trying to get away with saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single word is defined. > and therefore that there are > semantic tautologies that don't define anything, retracting your earlier > statement. > -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 19:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10h0626$21sj4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641637 |
On 2025-12-05 10:21, olcott wrote: > On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >> the words but does not define anything > > In other words you are trying to get away with > saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised > of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single > word is defined. A dictionary is useless unless you're already fluent in the language in which it is written. If you think otherwise, go to your local library and check out a (monolingual) dictionary of Hindi, Chinese, or any other language you're not familiar with and see how successful you are at learning the meanings of any words in that language just by reading a dictionary. Monolingual dictionaries target people who already have a vocabulary in the given language and who understand how at least some of the vocabulary of that language relates to the empirical world. To someone who does not they really would be just "meaningless gibberish". André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 21:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h07aa$22gt8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641654 |
On 12/5/2025 8:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2025-12-05 10:21, olcott wrote: >> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>> the words but does not define anything >> >> In other words you are trying to get away with >> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >> word is defined. > > A dictionary is useless unless you're already fluent in the language in > which it is written. > This is generally true for humans. Apparently LLM systems can reverse-engineer semantics when they are given a sufficient number of relations to finite strings, such as a dictionary. > If you think otherwise, go to your local library and check out a > (monolingual) dictionary of Hindi, Chinese, or any other language you're > not familiar with and see how successful you are at learning the > meanings of any words in that language just by reading a dictionary. > Apparently an LLM reverse-engineered that meaning of some document only having the document as its basis. > Monolingual dictionaries target people who already have a vocabulary in > the given language and who understand how at least some of the > vocabulary of that language relates to the empirical world. To someone > who does not they really would be just "meaningless gibberish". > > André > I was referring to a knowledge ontology (like a type hierarchy) where every single word it fully defined in formalized Natural language like Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates. It would contain the entire body of basic (thus indivisible) facts of general knowledge and a set of rules for any combination of semantic logical entailment from these basis facts. This ends up with the entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. It might be a printed book 1000 miles tall. 158,400,000,000,000,000 bytes. Only about 100 server racks. -- 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 | 2025-12-06 11:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h0rci$28uco$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641637 |
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: > On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term >>>>>>>>> for "definition". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some >>>>>>>> effort >>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>> >>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>> in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >> >>>>> It does not. >>>> >>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >> >>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >> >> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >> the words but does not define anything > > In other words you are trying to get away with > saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised > of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single > word is defined. There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that define words of one language in terms of words of another language. There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know the meanings of most of the words from other sources. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 06:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h187o$2di3s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641659 |
On 12/6/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21:
>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46:
>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09:
>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all
>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and
>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean*
>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely
>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term
>>>>>>>>>> for "definition".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take some
>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the
>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing
>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this
>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until
>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language
>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
>>>>>>> in language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything.
>>>
>>>>>> It does not.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the
>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything.
>>>
>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle.
>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties.
>>>
>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square
>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of
>>> the words but does not define anything
>>
>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised
>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single
>> word is defined.
>
> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that
> define words of one language in terms of words of another language.
> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings
> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular
> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries
> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know
> the meanings of most of the words from other sources.
>
You like Quine could not tell the difference between
an acyclic directed graph and one with cycles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism#Analyticity_and_circularity
Rudolf Carnap Meaning Postulates addresses Quine
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).
Here it is in Olcott's Minimal Type Theory
∀x (Bachelor(x) := ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x))
Bachelor(x) {is defined as} ~Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x)
Minimal Type Theory Syntax
https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2
--
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 12:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h3m0h$3cna8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641670 |
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.40: > On 12/6/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term >>>>>>>>>>> for "definition". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take >>>>>>>>>> some effort >>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language >>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>>> >>>>>>> It does not. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>>> >>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>>> >>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>>> the words but does not define anything >>> >>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >>> word is defined. >> >> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. > > You like Quine could not tell the difference between > an acyclic directed graph and one with cycles. It is a sin to lie about other people. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 09:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h45o8$3guvb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641697 |
On 12/7/2025 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.40: >> On 12/6/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21: >>>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46: >>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09: >>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term >>>>>>>>>>>> for "definition". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take >>>>>>>>>>> some effort >>>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the >>>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing >>>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this >>>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until >>>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed >>>>>>>>> in language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything. >>>>> >>>>>>>> It does not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the >>>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything. >>>>> >>>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle. >>>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties. >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square >>>>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of >>>>> the words but does not define anything >>>> >>>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>>> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised >>>> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single >>>> word is defined. >>> >>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that >>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language. >>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings >>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular >>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries >>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know >>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources. >> >> You like Quine could not tell the difference between >> an acyclic directed graph and one with cycles. > > It is a sin to lie about other people. > My above statement was woefully insufficiently precise thus probably untrue. I retract it now. In the case of Bachelor(x) versus ~Married(x) most people in the world mindlessly agree with Quine that their relationship is circular. Rudolf Carnap immediately proved otherwise and not even one person could understand otherwise the received view would not agree with Quine. https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf Carnap was not clear enough. I correct this. Bachelor(x) is a stipulated relation defined in terms of: ~Married(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Male(x) It acquires all of its meaning from those terms as a multiple inheritance relation in an acyclic graph of types. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 02:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h5bnh$3s62p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641712 |
On 07/12/2025 15:16, olcott wrote: > Bachelor(x) is a stipulated relation defined > in terms of: ~Married(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Male(x) > It acquires all of its meaning from those terms > as a multiple inheritance relation in an acyclic > graph of types. It's funny that it used to be such a new idea, when today it's so uncontroversial and ordinary within the specialism. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h5g76$3t2ld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641722 |
On 12/7/2025 8:04 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 07/12/2025 15:16, olcott wrote: > >> Bachelor(x) is a stipulated relation defined >> in terms of: ~Married(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Male(x) >> It acquires all of its meaning from those terms >> as a multiple inheritance relation in an acyclic >> graph of types. > > It's funny that it used to be such a new idea, when today it's so > uncontroversial and ordinary within the specialism. > The received view based on Quine Two Dogmas of Empiricism1a Willard Van Orman Quine https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf It that the relationship between Bachelor(x) and ~Married(x) is circular thus unsound. -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 09:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h67ac$1s7a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641727 |
On 08/12/2025 03:21, olcott wrote: > The received view based on Quine > > Two Dogmas of Empiricism1a > Willard Van Orman Quine > https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf > > It that the relationship between Bachelor(x) > and ~Married(x) is circular thus unsound. > It's circular properties are soundly circular, you can reason about them. We rely on it to define terms in philosophy where we reference thought with language instead of referencing shared experiences (which is too nondeterministic itself). When two sets of terms have the same relationships we can then choose either to identify them or not. It relies on intuitionistic reasoning a lot of the time, acknowledging that your system is not closed. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web