XPost: sci.logic, sci.lang, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that have   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more properties in common. These operations   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from set theory are available: {⊆, ∈}   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal) language L that has been assigned the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property of True. (Similar to a math Axiom).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate foundation of the notion of Truth in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language L.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To verify that an expression X of language L is True   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or False only requires a syntactic logical   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence inference chain (formal proof) from one   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or more elements of T to X or ~X.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, X)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, ~X)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete Olcott   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of formalized Truth is only about relations   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings of characters.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This exact same Truth can be equally expressed   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (tokenized) as relations between integers.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2026 update   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of characters.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This by itself makes   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reliably computable.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not until you can do the first, which you can't   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you make you system "small".   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you are doing it proving you don't understand what   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU don't know what you are talking about,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are just ignorance cubed.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the same idea in much greater depth   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure would seem that way to everyone that did   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> He may have admitted it but he was not actually   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> been proven wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Sure he was.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Can you actually prove he was right?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Yes   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Then why haven't you?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Your current arguements have all been based on bad definitions.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of computation can be construed as applying finite   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but some results are not computable.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope of computation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't understand what you are talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> of scope.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> See that you proved that you do understand   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> what I am talking about.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> So, you don't know what a transformation is.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> computable transformation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that   
   >>>>>>>>>> the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)   
   >>>>>>>>>> is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Nope. The problem is you HHH doesn't simulated its input   
   >>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of C, in part because the input you   
   >>>>>>>>> try to give doesn't have meaning by the semantics of C, since   
   >>>>>>>>> it deosn't define HHH.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)