XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/24/2025 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/24/25 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/24/2025 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/24/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am   
   >>>>>> in the top 3%. Where are you by these same   
   >>>>>> objective measures? I would say that you are   
   >>>>>> at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of   
   >>>>> actual intelligence.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?   
   >>>> I know that you are much higher than the normal of   
   >>>> 100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least   
   >>>> some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart   
   >>>> enough to graduate college.   
   >>>   
   >>> Various test come out to over 150 (the top for that test) to 180-190.   
   >>>   
   >>> I know enough of the theory of the test to understand there general   
   >>> unreliability. Also, there are many types of "IQ" that a person will   
   >>> have different levels in.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when   
   >>>>>>> they have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic   
   >>>>>>> for the fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore   
   >>>>>>> reality.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It is all a matter of your lack of ability to   
   >>>>>> pay complete attention. You have never been   
   >>>>>> able to show the tiniest actual mistake in   
   >>>>>> anything that I have ever said and prove that   
   >>>>>> it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, I pay attention, but you don't.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are   
   >>>>> not interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out   
   >>>> were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The   
   >>>> were only "errors" within the assumption that   
   >>>> the conventional view is infallible.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you don't THINK they are error because they disagree with your   
   >>> preconcieved notions.   
   >>>   
   >>> THe fact you haven't (probably because you CAN'T) actually refute   
   >>> them shos that they are errors, that you are just chooing to ignore,   
   >>> because truth isn't a concern of yours.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The best that you have every done is show that   
   >>>>>> what I am saying does not conform to the   
   >>>>>> convention view.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam   
   >>>>> is the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an   
   >>>>> option.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The conventional view has several key definitions.   
   >>>> Some of these definitions contradict other definitions   
   >>>> within this same system.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> So, what are the contradictions?   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you sure you are using definitions from the same field?   
   >>>   
   >>> You have shown a remarkable failure to understand the concept of   
   >>> context, and even a rejection of the concept of the term-of-art.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That is the height of stupidity.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.   
   >>>>>>>> I have the opposite hyper focus super power.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional   
   >>>>>> view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false   
   >>>>>> within a definition are derived by applying correct   
   >>>>>> semantic entailment to this definition.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions   
   >>>> of this same system and that is their error. You   
   >>>> are smart and capable of understanding me. You did   
   >>>> just bring up a crucially important point.   
   >>>   
   >>> Where?   
   >>>   
   >>> Since you have stated you never actually studied the system, it would   
   >>> be hard for you to actually KNOW the real definitions.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a   
   >>>>> system.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It never has been this. It probably did seem   
   >>>> like this before I could translate my mere   
   >>>> intuitions into first principles derived from   
   >>>> standard definitions.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure it has.   
   >>>   
   >>> You have ALWAYS been confusing the concept of Truth with the idea of   
   >>> Knowledge, which is why the unprovable is so bothersome to you, as it   
   >>> points out the distiction that you try to refuse to beleive.   
   >>>   
   >>> Note, the concepts of Unprovable, Unknowable, Undecidable,   
   >>> Uncomputable are all tightly tied together, coming in a sense from   
   >>> the same source. But that this destroyes you bad mental model, you   
   >>> try to (unsucessfully) rebel from these.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your problem is you   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You have not even shows that you know what   
   >>>>>> "semantic entailment" is. If you do not   
   >>>>>> even know what it is then you cannot know   
   >>>>>> the details of how it works.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.   
   >>>> It asked for you to show that you understand what   
   >>>> "semantic entailment" is and how it works.   
   >>>   
   >>> Since you don't understand what semantics mean, because you think you   
   >>> can change the meaning of words, it will be impossible for you to   
   >>> understand the meaning of that phrase.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates   
   >>>> that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"   
   >>>> is and how it works.   
   >>>   
   >>> Part of the problem with that term, is it generally is used in the   
   >>> context of natural languages, which are actually out of scope of the   
   >>> formal logic systems you want to be talking about.   
   >>>   
   >>> It deals with a statement being required to be true as a result of   
   >>> the basic meaning of the words, but that then requires that the   
   >>> meaning of the words be properly and consistantly defined.   
   >>>   
   >>> Formal systems bypass this problem, as their axioms DEFINE the basic   
   >>> truths of the systems, and their accepted operations the way you can   
   >>> manipulate them, and thus "semantics" boil done to the question of   
   >>> what can be the results of applying those operations in all possible   
   >>> configurations to those axioms. That BECOMES the meaning in the system.   
   >>>   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)