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.
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it isn't one.
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
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.
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it isn't one. >>>>>
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
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.
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.
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it isn't one. >>>>>>
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
in an infinite loop.
BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to
satisfy goals like:
equal(X, X).
?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))),
and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure. END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
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.
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.
As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
that you retracted your proposal.
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it isn't one. >>>>>>>
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
in an infinite loop.
BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the
unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to
satisfy goals like:
equal(X, X).
?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated
subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is
foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))),
and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.
END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
that you retracted your proposal.
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.
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.
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.
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
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it isn't >>>>>>>> one.
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
in an infinite loop.
BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the
unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to
satisfy goals like:
equal(X, X).
?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated
subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is
foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))),
and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.
END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
that you retracted your proposal.
If you understood the above you would understand
that I already answered (a) in 100% complete detail.
The assumption that is false is that G is not
semantically incoherent.
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)
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.
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F >>>>>>>>>
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it isn't >>>>>>>>> one.
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
in an infinite loop.
BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the
unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to
satisfy goals like:
equal(X, X).
?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated >>>> subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), which is >>>> foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), >>>> and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.
END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
that you retracted your proposal.
If you understood the above you would understand
that I already answered (a) in 100% complete detail.
Apparently "that" in your "I propopose that is a false assumption"
refers to my "yes" response to your previous posting. But that
response does not oresent any assumption.
As everyone can see, you did not indentify the assumption.
The assumption that is false is that G is not
semantically incoherent.
That assumption is not present in any plase that the word "that"
could refer to.
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.
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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>
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.
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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>
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.
On 12/6/25 4:01 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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F >>>>>>>>>>
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it >>>>>>>>>> isn't one.
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
in an infinite loop.
BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the >>>>> unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to >>>>> satisfy goals like:
equal(X, X).
?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated >>>>> subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y),
which is
foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is foo(foo(foo(Y))), >>>>> and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure. >>>>> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
that you retracted your proposal.
If you understood the above you would understand
that I already answered (a) in 100% complete detail.
Apparently "that" in your "I propopose that is a false assumption"
refers to my "yes" response to your previous posting. But that
response does not oresent any assumption.
As everyone can see, you did not indentify the assumption.
The assumption that is false is that G is not
semantically incoherent.
That assumption is not present in any plase that the word "that"
could refer to.
I explained all of the details of how G is
semantically incoherent and you understood none of it.
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.
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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just a liar.
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:
On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F >>>>>>>>>>>
With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
- the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
- the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
- the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
- thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it >>>>>>>>>>> isn't one.
% This sentence cannot be proven in F
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
It is an expression of language having no truth value
because it is not a logic sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic) >>>>>>>>>
The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either >>>>>>>>> true or false
I propose that is a false assumption.
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
(b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false >>>>>
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
in an infinite loop.
BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the >>>>>> unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to >>>>>> satisfy goals like:
equal(X, X).
?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
that is, they will allow you to match a term against an
uninstantiated
subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y),
which is
foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is
foo(foo(foo(Y))),
and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure. >>>>>> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
that you retracted your proposal.
If you understood the above you would understand
that I already answered (a) in 100% complete detail.
Apparently "that" in your "I propopose that is a false assumption"
refers to my "yes" response to your previous posting. But that
response does not oresent any assumption.
As everyone can see, you did not indentify the assumption.
The assumption that is false is that G is not
semantically incoherent.
That assumption is not present in any plase that the word "that"
could refer to.
I explained all of the details of how G is
semantically incoherent and you understood none of it.
The question (a) is still unanswered, apparently because the answer
would reveal that your claim the equestion is about is false.
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.
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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
Le 07/12/2025 à 04:50, polcott a écrit :
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 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:A semantic tautology might be considered the
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. >>>>>>>>>>
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.
That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle.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. >>>>>>
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
Sure. They even know about spoons eating dogs:
In the realm of Silverwood, enchanted spoons woke up one morning
with a strange craving: they wanted to eat dogs' *worries*.
Not the dogs themselves—just the glowing little anxieties
floating above every canine like tiny lanterns.
The spoons marched across the land, clinking like metal crickets.
Dogs barked in confusion. Humans panicked. Spoons vibrated
with excitement.
But when they reached Brindle, the oldest shepherd dog,
his worries were so wise and deep that the spoons swallowed them
and instantly became thoughtful, sleepy, and kind.
"Enough eating," declared the Chief Spoon.
"From now on, we walk the dogs."
And so Silverwood became the only kingdom where spoons
could be seen taking dogs for evening strolls.
On 07/12/2025 05:32, Python wrote:
Le 07/12/2025 à 04:50, polcott a écrit :
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 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:So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another >>>>>>>>>>>>>> term for "definition".
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle.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. >>>>>>>
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
Sure. They even know about spoons eating dogs:
In the realm of Silverwood, enchanted spoons woke up one morning
with a strange craving: they wanted to eat dogs' *worries*.
Not the dogs themselves—just the glowing little anxieties
floating above every canine like tiny lanterns.
The spoons marched across the land, clinking like metal crickets.
Dogs barked in confusion. Humans panicked. Spoons vibrated
with excitement.
But when they reached Brindle, the oldest shepherd dog,
his worries were so wise and deep that the spoons swallowed them
and instantly became thoughtful, sleepy, and kind.
"Enough eating," declared the Chief Spoon.
"From now on, we walk the dogs."
And so Silverwood became the only kingdom where spoons
could be seen taking dogs for evening strolls.
That makes sense - the spoons would be especially well suited to
cleaning up when their companions poop, as all civilised nations require!
Mike.
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just
a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
of the following sentence:I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.
Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the meaning
She showed she was a big girl.
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is just
a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless, as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you are talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.
of the following sentence:Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the meaning
She showed she was a big girl.
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.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how >>>>>> formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is
just a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless,
as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you are
talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be an
meaning of the following sentence:Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the
She showed she was a big girl.
When you begin a reply with anything besides
reasoning I will always ignore the rest.
My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique
GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.
I must first know your intended sense meanings.
showed: seems to mean demonstrated
big girl: seems to mean something like
average maturity for a 10 year old girl
In any case none of these details matter.
All that matters is that it is feasible
to encode the body of general knowledge
using Montague Grammar in a Knowledge ontology.
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.
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.
On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand
how formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is
just a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of
word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless,
as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you
are talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be
meaning of the following sentence:Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the
She showed she was a big girl.
When you begin a reply with anything besides
reasoning I will always ignore the rest.
So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning"
My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique
GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.
Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable.
As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big"
I must first know your intended sense meanings.
showed: seems to mean demonstrated
That isn't how it works.
big girl: seems to mean something like
average maturity for a 10 year old girl
Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the
complexity of Natural Language.
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.
Maybe because it is well understood that no formal system that can
be presented includes the entire body of human general knowledge.
On 12/7/2025 8:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:/That/ is absurd.
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.
--If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
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.
On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>>> how formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is
just a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of
word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are
worthless, as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you
are talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be
meaning of the following sentence:Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the
She showed she was a big girl.
When you begin a reply with anything besides
reasoning I will always ignore the rest.
So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning"
My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique
GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.
Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable.
As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big"
I must first know your intended sense meanings.
showed: seems to mean demonstrated
That isn't how it works.
big girl: seems to mean something like
average maturity for a 10 year old girl
Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the
complexity of Natural Language.
I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by
mathematically formalizing the body of
general knowledge as relations between GUID's.
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.
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.
On 08/12/2025 03:21, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 8:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:/That/ is absurd.
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.
|
|
V
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
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.
On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>>>> how formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>>>>> just a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of >>>>> word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are
worthless, as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you
are talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
meaning of the following sentence:I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be >>>>> an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.
Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the
She showed she was a big girl.
When you begin a reply with anything besides
reasoning I will always ignore the rest.
So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning"
My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique
GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.
Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable.
As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big"
I must first know your intended sense meanings.
showed: seems to mean demonstrated
That isn't how it works.
big girl: seems to mean something like
average maturity for a 10 year old girl
Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the
complexity of Natural Language.
I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by
mathematically formalizing the body of
general knowledge as relations between GUID's.
No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the
statement I gave you.
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:/That/ is absurd.
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.
|
|
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
On 12/8/2025 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand >>>>>>>>>> how formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is >>>>>>>> just a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning
of word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are
worthless, as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you >>>>>> are talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will >>>>>> be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.
Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>>>>> meaning of the following sentence:
She showed she was a big girl.
When you begin a reply with anything besides
reasoning I will always ignore the rest.
So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning"
My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique
GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.
Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable.
As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big"
I must first know your intended sense meanings.
showed: seems to mean demonstrated
That isn't how it works.
big girl: seems to mean something like
average maturity for a 10 year old girl
Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the
complexity of Natural Language.
I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by
mathematically formalizing the body of
general knowledge as relations between GUID's.
No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the
statement I gave you.
It was your error of insufficiently specifying
which of many sense meanings that you intended.
It was not inherently ambiguity it is lack of
sufficient specification.
On 12/8/25 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/8/2025 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
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.
This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't
understand how formal langagues work.
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he >>>>>>>>> is just a liar.
If that was true you could show that with reasoning.
By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.
You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning >>>>>>> of word.
DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.
If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are
worthless, as meaning is broken,.
Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what
you are talking about.
I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:
I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will >>>>>>> be an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.
Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the >>>>>>> meaning of the following sentence:
She showed she was a big girl.
When you begin a reply with anything besides
reasoning I will always ignore the rest.
So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning"
My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique
GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.
Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable.
As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big"
I must first know your intended sense meanings.
showed: seems to mean demonstrated
That isn't how it works.
big girl: seems to mean something like
average maturity for a 10 year old girl
Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the
complexity of Natural Language.
I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by
mathematically formalizing the body of
general knowledge as relations between GUID's.
No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the
statement I gave you.
It was your error of insufficiently specifying
which of many sense meanings that you intended.
It was not inherently ambiguity it is lack of
sufficient specification.
What did I insufficeintly specify?
On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
What did I insufficeintly specify?
Troll
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Tristan did not understand it he would not have
been able to correctly improve it.
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.
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")
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.
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".
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.
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.
On 12/7/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:
On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's. >>>>>>>>>> The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either >>>>>>>>>> true or false
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
I propose that is a false assumption.
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false >>>>>>>> (b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
That Gödel 1931 Incompleteness exists as anything
besides a misconception.
I thought that when I proved that it is a misconception
that you would be able to infer the incorrect assumption
on the basis of this proof. Also if you could not infer
this then you lack the prerequisites to understand what
I am saying.
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
On 12/7/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:
On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's. >>>>>>>>>>> The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either >>>>>>>>>>> true or false
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
I propose that is a false assumption.
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false >>>>>>>>> (b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 16.59:
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
That Gödel 1931 Incompleteness exists as anything
besides a misconception.
That does not make sense. Quite obviously Gödel's incompleteness is not mentioned in the scope where that can refer.
I thought that when I proved that it is a misconception
that you would be able to infer the incorrect assumption
on the basis of this proof. Also if you could not infer
this then you lack the prerequisites to understand what
I am saying.
If you don't understand how pronouns refer you should not use them.
On 12/7/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:
On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's. >>>>>>>>>>> The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either >>>>>>>>>>> true or false
olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
I propose that is a false assumption.
On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false >>>>>>>>> (b) why should that assumption be considered false
(c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 16.59:
(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
That Gödel 1931 Incompleteness exists as anything
besides a misconception.
That does not make sense. Quite obviously Gödel's incompleteness is not mentioned in the scope where that can refer.
I thought that when I proved that it is a misconception
that you would be able to infer the incorrect assumption
on the basis of this proof. Also if you could not infer
this then you lack the prerequisites to understand what
I am saying.
If you don't understand how pronouns refer you should not use them.
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.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,089 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 155:34:50 |
| Calls: | 13,921 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
3,962 files (1,001M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,202 |