XPost: sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/6/2025 7:27 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-05 14:03:37 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Gödel 1931 undecidability and Tarski Undefinability   
   >> only exist because they they not know to reject an   
   >> expression of language that is not a truth bearer.   
   >   
   > What expression of the language of the first order theory of the   
   > first order Peano arithmetic is not a truth bearer? That you can't   
   > determine the truth value of some expression does not mean that ir   
   > has none. That you don't understand the proof does not mean that   
   > the proofs are not sound.   
   >   
      
   https://claude.ai/share/45d3ca9c-fa9a-4a02-9e22-c6acd0057275   
   It turns out that the essence of these two papers is much   
   simpler than that.   
      
   >> Claude AI is quite hesitant at first, disagreeing   
   >> with me several times. Then it is finally convinced   
   >> that I am correct.   
   >   
   > That you may convince an artificial idiot means nothing.   
   >   
      
   It may seem to mean nothing until after you carefully   
   examine all of the details of how it pieces together all   
   of my ideas into a single cohesive whole.   
      
   >>>>> But Tarski proved about natural numbers that if there were a   
   >>>>> definition   
   >>>>> of a predicate in terms of a formula in the language of Peano   
   >>>>> arithmetic   
   >>>>> that accepts all numbers that encode a true sentence and rejects all   
   >>>>> other numbers then that predicate would accept a number that encodes   
   >>>>> a false sentence or reject a number that encodes a true sentence.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Mine has a broader scope that can be applied to   
   >>>> any pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) in   
   >>>> formal expressions and formalized natural language   
   >>>> expressions.   
   >>>   
   >>> Tarstki's scope is wider, too, but the first order arithmetic of natural   
   >>> numbers is the most interesting part of the scope.   
   >>   
   >> My scope is the entire body of human knowledge   
   >> that can be expressed in language.   
   >   
   > Tarski's scope was only formal theories and their languages. Within that   
   > scope it is at least clear what constitutes a proof.   
   >   
   What good would that be?   
      
   True(English, "Election fraud changed   
         the outcome of the 2020 presidential election")==FALSE   
      
   True(English, "Unmitigated climate change caused by humans   
         will have increasing severe effects on global climate")==TRUE   
      
   For either answer the system would be able to cite all of its   
   sources and provide its fully specified complete and correct   
   reasoning.   
      
   True(English, "This sentence is not true")==INCORRECT   
   True(English, "This sentence cannot be proven")==INCORRECT   
      
   Getting from Generative AI to Trustworthy AI:   
   What LLMs might learn from Cyc   
      
   Doug Lenat   
   doug@cyc.com   
   Gary Marcus   
   gary.marcus@nyu.edu   
   July 31, 2023   
      
   https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)