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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 22:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <NBMZQ.42371$aeF6.1611@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #641761 |
On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Troll
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>
>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>
>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>
>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you just
>> refuse to answer the question.
>>
>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied about
>> what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that you are
>> smarter than me?
>>
>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running aways
>> scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>
>>>
>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>
>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>> or syntactic property.
>>
>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the answer
>> to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>
>
> I will give you a much simpler example.
> If a universal truth predicate is defined
> to return true when and expression is true
> and false when an expression is false then
> what does it correctly return for this:
> True("What time is it")
>
>
>
You have a problem with you definition,
A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement is
true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a
statement without a truth value.
Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a
question, not an asserting)
True("What time is it") is False.
Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and try
to redefine them to match your ignorancd.
That makes you world just a lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 21:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <10h86b0$1c0rh$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641762 |
On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>
>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>
>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>
>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you just
>>> refuse to answer the question.
>>>
>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied about
>>> what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that you are
>>> smarter than me?
>>>
>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>
>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>
>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the answer
>>> to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>
>>
>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>> to return true when and expression is true
>> and false when an expression is false then
>> what does it correctly return for this:
>> True("What time is it")
>>
>>
>>
>
> You have a problem with you definition,
>
> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement is
> true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a
> statement without a truth value.
>
That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
halt decider defined this way?
true if it is determined that it halts else false.
> Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a
> question, not an asserting)
>
> True("What time is it") is False.
>
> Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and try
> to redefine them to match your ignorancd.
>
> That makes you world just a lie.
I examine the philosophical foundations of these things
that everyone else simply takes as "given".
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <9sNZQ.1877$C_K8.965@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #641763 |
On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>>
>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>>
>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>>
>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you just
>>>> refuse to answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied
>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that
>>>> you are smarter than me?
>>>>
>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>>
>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the
>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>>> to return true when and expression is true
>>> and false when an expression is false then
>>> what does it correctly return for this:
>>> True("What time is it")
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have a problem with you definition,
>>
>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement is
>> true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a
>> statement without a truth value.
>>
>
> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
> halt decider defined this way?
>
> true if it is determined that it halts else false.
No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.
Just like the True predicate isn't asking if we can prove the statement,
just if it *is* true, and true can be different then proven. That truth
can be based on an infinite sequence of inferences, as that *IS* how
truth is defined.
The program DD() you have defined does halt because your HHH you have
defined returns 0 when HHH(DD) is called.
The fact that HHH can't determine this doesn't change the correct
answer, it just makes HHH wrong.
Truth is not subjective, but objective.
>
>> Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a
>> question, not an asserting)
>>
>> True("What time is it") is False.
>>
>> Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and
>> try to redefine them to match your ignorancd.
>>
>> That makes you world just a lie.
>
> I examine the philosophical foundations of these things
> that everyone else simply takes as "given".
>
But don't understand what you are talking about.
Since you fundamentally change the meaning of some of the words, nothing
you "think up" is actually applicable.
This come, in part, because you are just ignorant of many basic facts
about how logic works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 22:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <10h88kv$1c2nb$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641765 |
On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
>> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you
>>>>> just refuse to answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied
>>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof that
>>>>> you are smarter than me?
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the
>>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>>>> to return true when and expression is true
>>>> and false when an expression is false then
>>>> what does it correctly return for this:
>>>> True("What time is it")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have a problem with you definition,
>>>
>>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement is
>>> true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a
>>> statement without a truth value.
>>>
>>
>> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
>> halt decider defined this way?
>>
>> true if it is determined that it halts else false.
>
> No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.
>
True(X) if X is determined to be True,
false if false, gibberish or paradox.
> Just like the True predicate isn't asking if we can prove the statement,
> just if it *is* true,
On what basis? (I spent 28 years on this).
> and true can be different then proven. That truth
> can be based on an infinite sequence of inferences, as that *IS* how
> truth is defined.
>
> The program DD() you have defined does halt because your HHH you have
> defined returns 0 when HHH(DD) is called.
>
> The fact that HHH can't determine this doesn't change the correct
> answer, it just makes HHH wrong.
>
> Truth is not subjective, but objective.
>
>>
>>> Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a
>>> question, not an asserting)
>>>
>>> True("What time is it") is False.
>>>
>>> Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and
>>> try to redefine them to match your ignorancd.
>>>
>>> That makes you world just a lie.
>>
>> I examine the philosophical foundations of these things
>> that everyone else simply takes as "given".
>>
>
> But don't understand what you are talking about.
>
Like I said everyone here thinks that
examining philosophical foundations is nuts.
These foundations are already established and
been infallibly determined to be perfect.
> Since you fundamentally change the meaning of some of the words, nothing
> you "think up" is actually applicable.
>
> This come, in part, because you are just ignorant of many basic facts
> about how logic works.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <XOUZQ.21385$URL8.15291@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #641767 |
On 12/8/25 11:30 PM, polcott wrote:
> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you
>>>>>> just refuse to answer the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied
>>>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof
>>>>>> that you are smarter than me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the
>>>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>>>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>>>>> to return true when and expression is true
>>>>> and false when an expression is false then
>>>>> what does it correctly return for this:
>>>>> True("What time is it")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have a problem with you definition,
>>>>
>>>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement
>>>> is true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or a
>>>> statement without a truth value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
>>> halt decider defined this way?
>>>
>>> true if it is determined that it halts else false.
>>
>> No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.
>>
>
> True(X) if X is determined to be True,
> false if false, gibberish or paradox.
Only in your LIES.
That has been one of your core problems, you never bothered to learn the
ACTUAL meaning of the terms, but just guessed based on what you
>
>> Just like the True predicate isn't asking if we can prove the
>> statement, just if it *is* true,
>
> On what basis? (I spent 28 years on this).
The DEFINITION of it.
Your problem is you WASTED 28 years by walking in ignorance. If you had
bothered to actually learn the definitions, as opposed to incorrectly
guess them based on your zero principle analysis you might have come up
with something.'
As it is, you just proved your ignorance.
>
>> and true can be different then proven. That truth can be based on an
>> infinite sequence of inferences, as that *IS* how truth is defined.
>>
>> The program DD() you have defined does halt because your HHH you have
>> defined returns 0 when HHH(DD) is called.
>>
>> The fact that HHH can't determine this doesn't change the correct
>> answer, it just makes HHH wrong.
>>
>> Truth is not subjective, but objective.
>>
>>>
>>>> Since, "What Time is it" doesn't have a truth value (as it is a
>>>> question, not an asserting)
>>>>
>>>> True("What time is it") is False.
>>>>
>>>> Again, your problem is you don't know the meaning of the words, and
>>>> try to redefine them to match your ignorancd.
>>>>
>>>> That makes you world just a lie.
>>>
>>> I examine the philosophical foundations of these things
>>> that everyone else simply takes as "given".
>>>
>>
>> But don't understand what you are talking about.
>>
>
> Like I said everyone here thinks that
> examining philosophical foundations is nuts.
To examine the philosphical foundations, you need to KNOW those
foundations. Your problem is you don't understand the foundations of
Formal Logic, one of which is that you can't change the rules of a
system and stay in it,
>
> These foundations are already established and
> been infallibly determined to be perfect.
Yes, but you don't know them, because you started with false
assumptions, and then build an unsound system off of your lies.
>
>> Since you fundamentally change the meaning of some of the words,
>> nothing you "think up" is actually applicable.
>>
>> This come, in part, because you are just ignorant of many basic facts
>> about how logic works.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 10:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <10h9hc4$1cult$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #641774 |
On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/8/25 11:30 PM, polcott wrote:
>> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>>>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you
>>>>>>> just refuse to answer the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied
>>>>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof
>>>>>>> that you are smarter than me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>>>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>>>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the
>>>>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>>>>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>>>>>> to return true when and expression is true
>>>>>> and false when an expression is false then
>>>>>> what does it correctly return for this:
>>>>>> True("What time is it")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a problem with you definition,
>>>>>
>>>>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement
>>>>> is true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or
>>>>> a statement without a truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
>>>> halt decider defined this way?
>>>>
>>>> true if it is determined that it halts else false.
>>>
>>> No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.
>>>
>>
>> True(X) if X is determined to be True,
>> false if false, gibberish or paradox.
>
> Only in your LIES.
>
> That has been one of your core problems, you never bothered to learn the
> ACTUAL meaning of the terms, but just guessed based on what you
I did make sure to never look at the conventional
received view of these things because it contains
all kinds of nonsense. For one thing there are about
nine different conventional received views.
Not even one person here ever looked at the correct
view that I reversed engineered. My work is a new
idea that is inconsistent with what they memorized
and they rejected it entirely on that basis making
no attempt to understand what I am saying.
Claude AI LLM acts like it has a PhD in everything
so it can connect together ideas from five different
fields.
So far no one here has achieved even as much as a baby
talk level of understanding of fully integrating
semantics directly in the syntax such the model theory
is not needed.
LLM systems immediately fully understand this and prove
that their understanding is correct by connecting all
of these ideas together on the basis of standard definitions.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability |
| Message-ID | <Ph6_Q.1318$_Sad.807@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #641778 |
On 12/9/25 11:05 AM, polcott wrote:
> On 12/9/2025 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/8/25 11:30 PM, polcott wrote:
>>> On 12/8/2025 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/8/2025 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/8/25 10:16 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 9:34 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/25 8:00 PM, polcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What did I insufficeintly specify?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you admit defeat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not in the least little bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why didn't you answer the question?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key difference with you as a troll compared to
>>>>>>>>> other trolls is that you do have a reasonably deep
>>>>>>>>> understanding of some of these things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you admit that I know what I am talking about, and that you
>>>>>>>> just refuse to answer the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only logical reason, is because you can't, because you lied
>>>>>>>> about what you can do. After all, why would you hide the proof
>>>>>>>> that you are smarter than me?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer, because you know you are out matched and are running
>>>>>>>> aways scared and trying to throw up a smoke screen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following may not be over your head if you cared
>>>>>>>>> to understand instead of being locked in rebuttal mode:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a *particular* semantic
>>>>>>>>> or syntactic property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, but are only CORRECT if the answr they give matches the
>>>>>>>> answer to the problem they are SUPPOSED to decide on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will give you a much simpler example.
>>>>>>> If a universal truth predicate is defined
>>>>>>> to return true when and expression is true
>>>>>>> and false when an expression is false then
>>>>>>> what does it correctly return for this:
>>>>>>> True("What time is it")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a problem with you definition,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Truth Predicate is defined to return True if the input statement
>>>>>> is true, and false for anything else, either a false statement, or
>>>>>> a statement without a truth value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes perfect sense to me, what is a
>>>>> halt decider defined this way?
>>>>>
>>>>> true if it is determined that it halts else false.
>>>>
>>>> No, not "DETERMINED", but *IF* it halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True(X) if X is determined to be True,
>>> false if false, gibberish or paradox.
>>
>> Only in your LIES.
>>
>> That has been one of your core problems, you never bothered to learn
>> the ACTUAL meaning of the terms, but just guessed based on what you
>
> I did make sure to never look at the conventional
> received view of these things because it contains
> all kinds of nonsense. For one thing there are about
> nine different conventional received views.
>
So you ADMIT that you don't know the meaning of the words you used.
How can you claim to embrace "semantics". when you admit that you don't
know what the terms you use mean.
That just PROVES you don't understand the basis of Formal Logic.
This also makes everything you have said a reckless-disregard for the
truth, and thus classifiable as a LIE even if you beleive it.
The "nonsense" you claim is just your own ignorance.
> Not even one person here ever looked at the correct
> view that I reversed engineered. My work is a new
> idea that is inconsistent with what they memorized
> and they rejected it entirely on that basis making
> no attempt to understand what I am saying.
But your view isn't "correct" as it is based on lies about definitions,
and ignorance of fundamentals.
>
> Claude AI LLM acts like it has a PhD in everything
> so it can connect together ideas from five different
> fields.
But AI LLM are just well trained liars. Yes, it ACTS like it has a PhD,
as it has been trained to decieve people to beleive it knows something.
All you are doing is showing your are just so stupidly naive that you
belive it.
>
> So far no one here has achieved even as much as a baby
> talk level of understanding of fully integrating
> semantics directly in the syntax such the model theory
> is not needed.
The problem is you ideas are just so riddled with internal
self-contradiction
>
> LLM systems immediately fully understand this and prove
> that their understanding is correct by connecting all
> of these ideas together on the basis of standard definitions.
>
Nope, they just buffaloed you into believing them. Your prompt had a
logical error that has been pointed out, and that error told them the
answer you wanted, so they gave it to you.
All you are doing is proving you have been had by the AI industry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 02:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h5cb2$3s62p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641706 |
On 07/12/2025 13:37, olcott wrote: > If that was true you could show that with reasoning. > By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. > false. I maintain that you do not know syllogism. -- 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 | <10h5g8h$3t2ld$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641723 |
On 12/7/2025 8:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 07/12/2025 13:37, olcott wrote: > >> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >> > > false. I maintain that you do not know syllogism. > That is absurd. -- 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 07:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h5tg0$3v9eq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641728 |
On 08/12/2025 03:21, olcott wrote:
> On 12/7/2025 8:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>> On 07/12/2025 13:37, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
>>>
>>
>> false. I maintain that you do not know syllogism.
>>
>
> That is absurd.
/That/ is absurd.
|
|
V
>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
--
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 | 2025-12-08 10:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h6v43$8nvr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641733 |
On 12/8/2025 1:07 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 08/12/2025 03:21, olcott wrote: >> On 12/7/2025 8:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 07/12/2025 13:37, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>> >>> >>> false. I maintain that you do not know syllogism. >>> >> >> That is absurd. > /That/ is absurd. > | > | > V > >>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. > Does a guy with a PhD in math need to prove that he knows first grade arithmetic? This is what I have known of the syllogism for many years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure -- 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 | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-08 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x8k3kaIUn7VhwV8V2Qf_ON68roE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #641745 |
Le 08/12/2025 à 17:41, olcott a écrit : > On 12/8/2025 1:07 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 08/12/2025 03:21, olcott wrote: >>> On 12/7/2025 8:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>> On 07/12/2025 13:37, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >>>>> >>>> >>>> false. I maintain that you do not know syllogism. >>>> >>> >>> That is absurd. >> /That/ is absurd. >> | >> | >> V >> >>>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning. >>>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true. >> > > Does a guy with a PhD in math need to prove that he > knows first grade arithmetic? > > This is what I have known of the syllogism for many years. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?x8k3kaIUn7VhwV8V2Qf_ON68roE@jntp/Data.Media:1>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 10:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10gu6qi$1625p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641570 |
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. A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't. It can be and usually is expressed with words that already have meanings. The definition of "semantic logical tautology" presented above doesn't require that it define any of its word. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-05 11:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10gv4rc$1jpns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641621 |
On 12/5/2025 2:57 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. > > A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't. [semantic tautology] is my term thus giving me absolute authority over its meaning. I stipulate that it derives all of its meaning from the base meaning of its constituents composed together. > It > can be and usually is expressed with words that already have meanings. > The definition of "semantic logical tautology" presented above doesn't > require that it define any of its word. > "I will be going to the grocery store in a few minutes" Is not typically construed as any king of logic sentence so I am expressly enlarging the scope of the the term "tautology" and expressly removing the notion of any syntactic basis by stipulating a "semantic" basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) -- 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 10:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h0qup$28p54$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641638 |
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.30: > On 12/5/2025 2:57 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. >> >> A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't. > [semantic tautology] is my term thus giving me absolute > authority over its meaning. No, you have not. The word "tautology" already has a meaning. Therefore you are restricted to subtypes of taotology. > I stipulate that it derives > all of its meaning from the base meaning of its constituents > composed together. That is teh exac meaning when I used the expression above and below. >> It >> can be and usually is expressed with words that already have meanings. >> The definition of "semantic logical tautology" presented above doesn't >> require that it define any of its word. > "I will be going to the grocery store in a few minutes" Aristotle has a long discussion on whther sentences about future events, like your example above, have a truth value. He concluded that they don't but modern ligicians often think they do. Either way, the above is not any kind of tautology. > Is not typically construed as any king of logic sentence > so I am expressly enlarging the scope of the the term > "tautology" and expressly removing the notion of any > syntactic basis by stipulating a "semantic" basis. If you want to extend the scope you must define what "tautology" or at least "semantic tautology" means in the extended scope. But the generalized meaning must be equivalent to the conventional meaning when applied to sentences of ordinary logic. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) That page says that tautology is a sentence that is true independently of its semantics. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-06 06:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h17q5$2dctd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641658 |
On 12/6/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.30: >> On 12/5/2025 2:57 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. >>> >>> A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't. > >> [semantic tautology] is my term thus giving me absolute >> authority over its meaning. > > No, you have not. The word "tautology" already has a meaning. Therefore > you are restricted to subtypes of taotology. > >> I stipulate that it derives >> all of its meaning from the base meaning of its constituents >> composed together. > > That is teh exac meaning when I used the expression above and below. > No one ever understands that my mathematical formal system includes the entire body of human general knowledge encoded in formalized English. >>> It >>> can be and usually is expressed with words that already have meanings. >>> The definition of "semantic logical tautology" presented above doesn't >>> require that it define any of its word. > >> "I will be going to the grocery store in a few minutes" > > Aristotle has a long discussion on whther sentences about future > events, like your example above, have a truth value. He concluded > that they don't but modern ligicians often think they do. Either > way, the above is not any kind of tautology. > No matter what anyone says it is a fact that that is my intention. >> Is not typically construed as any king of logic sentence >> so I am expressly enlarging the scope of the the term >> "tautology" and expressly removing the notion of any >> syntactic basis by stipulating a "semantic" basis. > > If you want to extend the scope you must define what "tautology" > or at least "semantic tautology" means in the extended scope. But > the generalized meaning must be equivalent to the conventional > meaning when applied to sentences of ordinary logic. > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) > > That page says that tautology is a sentence that is true independently > of its semantics. > A semantic tautology is a self-evident truth expressed in language. In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence -- 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 12:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10h3ln9$3cl0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641669 |
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.33: > On 12/6/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.30: >>> On 12/5/2025 2:57 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. >>>> >>>> A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't. >> >>> [semantic tautology] is my term thus giving me absolute >>> authority over its meaning. >> >> No, you have not. The word "tautology" already has a meaning. Therefore >> you are restricted to subtypes of taotology. >> >>> I stipulate that it derives >>> all of its meaning from the base meaning of its constituents >>> composed together. >> >> That is teh exac meaning when I used the expression above and below. > > No one ever understands that my mathematical formal > system includes the entire body of human general > knowledge encoded in formalized English. Maybe because it is well understood that no formal system that can be presented includes the entire body of human general knowledge. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-12-07 09:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h4505$3gnue$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641696 |
On 12/7/2025 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.33: >> On 12/6/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.30: >>>> On 12/5/2025 2:57 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. >>>>> >>>>> A semantic tautology needn't define any words and usually doesn't. >>> >>>> [semantic tautology] is my term thus giving me absolute >>>> authority over its meaning. >>> >>> No, you have not. The word "tautology" already has a meaning. Therefore >>> you are restricted to subtypes of taotology. >>> >>>> I stipulate that it derives >>>> all of its meaning from the base meaning of its constituents >>>> composed together. >>> >>> That is teh exac meaning when I used the expression above and below. >> >> No one ever understands that my mathematical formal >> system includes the entire body of human general >> knowledge encoded in formalized English. > > Maybe because it is well understood that no formal system that can > be presented includes the entire body of human general knowledge. > A false assumption is not at all the same thing as comprehension. People memorize all of the steps of a proof and construe that the fact that a correct refutation has not been presented in a long time as proof that the proof is correct. I knew that credibility is a fake measure of truth all the way back when I was 16. -- 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 06:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10h5q98$3uut0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641696 |
On 07/12/2025 10:42, Mikko wrote: > olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.33: >> No one ever understands that my mathematical formal >> system includes the entire body of human general >> knowledge encoded in formalized English. Liar. > Maybe because it is well understood that no formal system that can > be presented includes the entire body of human general knowledge. > Unless it also includes everything that is not of human general knowledge. Infinite monkeys and so forth. Olcott already said it was a semantic tautology, after all. Which is a fancy way of saying that it's a system for universal semantic analysis so it contains all possible meaning associations including those that are of the body of human general knowledge. Once he said it was a semantic tautology it was not possible to be surprising. The difficult bit is as for a sculptor; to carve away those things that are /not/ wanted. -- 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 | 2025-12-08 07:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10h6lj6$5uaa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641730 |
On 12/8/2025 12:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 07/12/2025 10:42, Mikko wrote: >> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.33: >>> No one ever understands that my mathematical formal >>> system includes the entire body of human general >>> knowledge encoded in formalized English. > > Liar. > >> Maybe because it is well understood that no formal system that can >> be presented includes the entire body of human general knowledge. >> > > Unless it also includes everything that is not of human general > knowledge. Infinite monkeys and so forth. > > Olcott already said it was a semantic tautology, after all. Which is a > fancy way of saying that it's a system for universal semantic analysis > so it contains all possible meaning associations including those that > are of the body of human general knowledge. > > Once he said it was a semantic tautology it was not possible to be > surprising. > > The difficult bit is as for a sculptor; to carve away those things that > are /not/ wanted. > It only must be a finite set because I intend for is to be stored and computable. -- 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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web