From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

That has been the whole reason that I stuck with this for 28 years.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 16/11/2025 02:17, olcott wrote:

That has been the whole reason that I stuck with this for 28 years.

You mean, true on the basis of ontological assignment, don't you?

I know you know that "meaning" has specific technical ... uhhhh .... ontological assignment ... which you are not referring to.


--
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.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/16/2025 1:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 16/11/2025 02:17, olcott wrote:

That has been the whole reason that I stuck with this for 28 years.

You mean, true on the basis of ontological assignment, don't you?

I know you know that "meaning" has specific technical ... uhhhh .... ontological assignment ... which you are not referring to.

"True on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
is simply stipulated relations between finite strings.

"Cats" <are> "animals" is only true because of
stipulated relations between otherwise arbitrary
finite strings.

--
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.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/21/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-11-20 14:52:19 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:

On 20/11/2025 08:46, Mikko wrote:

Regardless of what anybody accepts or rejects, Liar's Paradox is not
a truth bearer and therefore not a part of any valid inference.

Eh?! How did you infer that it's not part of any valid inference then?

I made a mistake. Of course, if there is a way to express it, it can
be used in an inference, at least as a hypothesis.

Nice demonstration of the liar paradox in one of its many forms though
and that G is not defined as Olcott says it is.

A related paradox is that Olcott rejects the Liar paradox but
uses it in an attempt to refute Gödel's and Tarksi's proofs.

In
particular, it is not a part of any vaild inference that connects
the halting problem to the statement that "true on the basis of
meaing is broken". Nobdy here has even shown an invalid inference
that concludes "true on the basis of meaning is broken" form Liar's
Paradox or anything else.

You don't even know what it means for that to be broken.

That knowledge is not necessary in order to see that no connection
between the halting problem and that or any related claim is shown.

I'm not even sure, since "true on the basis of meaning" isn't quoted
to form:

  "true on the basis of meaning" is broken.

If Olcott would try to justify his claim that might what his intended
meaning is. But as he doesn't it does not matter.

When an input D to a decider H is encoded to do the
opposite of whatever H returns this H/D pair is
isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

The above definitively proves that the Liar
Paradox is semantically unsound because its
resolution has an infinite resolution loop.

Because the halting problem is isomorphic to
the Liar Paradox the Halting Problem is refuted
by proxy.

So more than a mere paradox both the Halting
Problem and the Liar Paradox are rejected as
errors of reasoning.

When we start with a complete set of atomic
facts of the world expressed in language and
the only inference step allowed is semantic
logical entailment then no paradox can be
derived and True(Language L, Expression E)
can always be computed.

The language to encode all of this is an
extended form of Montague Grammar uniting
syntax and semantics as one. This discards
the whole notice of model theory.

It makes a syntactic proof the same thing as
semantic logical entailment. The Atomic facts
of the world are stored in a knowledge ontology
inheritance hierarchy.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/21/2025 6:29 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 21/11/2025 09:25, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-11-20 14:52:19 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:

On 20/11/2025 08:46, Mikko wrote:

A related paradox is that Olcott rejects the Liar paradox but
uses it in an attempt to refute Gödel's and Tarksi's proofs.

Uses it as a premise? I didn't pick up on that.

You don't even know what it means for [something or other] to be broken.

That knowledge is not necessary in order to see that no connection
between the halting problem and that or any related claim is shown.

Oh I see what you mean.

When input D to halt decider H does the opposite
of whatever H reports this H/D pair is isomorphic
to the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true"
it is true if it is false and false if it is true.

Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
E C R Hehner. Objective and Subjective Specifications
WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18.
See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
Eric Hehner is a PhD computer science professor

G := (F ⊬ G) // A := B means A "is defined as" B
A sentence that say of itself that itself is
unprovable in F is isomorphic to the Liar Paradox.

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2