XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.lang   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/4/2026 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/4/26 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/4/2026 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/3/2026 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/3/26 9:44 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/3/2026 7:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/3/26 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Thus making   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> inherently computable.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Nope.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> How does that answer the question of the truth of the statement:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> All Even Number greater than 2 are the sum of two primes.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That is not a member of the body of knowledge.   
   >>>>>>>>>> My system only applies to the body of knowledge.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And thus is admittedly, not a logic system, which is about a   
   >>>>>>>>> body of truths derived from axioms and rules.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In fact, you system can never learn anything new, as that   
   >>>>>>>>> wasn't part of that body, so isn't allowed.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> So, all you are doing is admitting you have been on a wrong   
   >>>>>>>>> track for decades, you you were never actually looking at logic   
   >>>>>>>>> systems.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> We are probably already too late and the world   
   >>>>>>>> will be killed by climate change hired liars.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> My system could have prevented that but having   
   >>>>>>>> trollish fun carried more weight than preventing   
   >>>>>>>> the end of life an Earth.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Nope, your system of lies is what you say is causing the problem.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Your problem is you don't understand what truth actually is.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> This is shown just by the fact that you beleive the LLMs you talk   
   >>>>>>> with.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Do you understand the correct semantic entailment   
   >>>>>> on the basis of expressions of language that are   
   >>>>>> stipulated to be true derives conclusions that are   
   >>>>>> necessarily true?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> YES you understand   
   >>>>>> or   
   >>>>>> NO you fail to understand   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yes, but not ALL truths can be found that way,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I agree "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>> excludes "true on the basis of direct physical sensations"   
   >>>   
   >>> It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Not when relations between finite strings directly   
   >> encode all of the underlying semantics and semantic   
   >> entailment is the only inference step allowed.   
   >   
   > But you can't do that.   
   >   
   > And, the only "language" you can use is the formal language of the   
   > formal system.   
   >   
   > And the meanings must be the actual meanings as applied to thosse strings.   
   >   
   > And, as has been shown, if your system is expresive enough, and your   
   > "all general knowledge" is, it has been shown that NEW meanings can be   
   > expressed encoded into the symbology.   
   >   
   > So, your arguemtn is just based on making an assumption about something   
   > that can be done.   
   >   
   > If you disagree, try to actually DEFINE such a system (not just describe   
   > in general terms how to do it, but ACTUALLY DO IT, and show how you   
   > encode even the knowledge of the Natural Numbers in the way you are   
   > trying to define.   
   >   
      
   It is categorically impossible to derive any element   
   of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in   
   language that is not entirely comprised of some relation   
   between finite strings.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> After all, how can the meaning of words solve the Goldbach conjecture?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I also agree   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is only the dirty trick of the Liar Paradox   
   >>>> that has kept True(L, x) from being defined for   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes anything   
   >>> new that can be learned.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> "the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"   
   >> at any moment in time defines a precise finite set of relations   
   >> between finite strings.   
   >   
   > Nope. As an UNBOUNDED amount CAN be expressed, even just tring to   
   > express basic math, since the numbers themselves are unbouned.   
   >   
      
   Even the exact position of every single atom of   
   matter relative to the exact center of the Earth   
   at any given instant in time is a finite set when   
   the precision is one centillionth of a millimeter.   
      
   >>   
   >>> And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the   
   >>> infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as we   
   >>> are fininte.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The result of infinite proofs is excluded from   
   >> "the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"   
   >   
   > Right, infinite proofs where never allowed.   
   >   
   > Infinite sequence of steps to create truth, on the other hand, is   
   > allowed. Thus statments like "No Number exist that ...." can be true,   
   > but might be unprovable.   
   >   
   > Again, you show an intrinsic confusion over Truth and Proof/Knowledge.   
   >   
      
   Knowledge is inherently finite.   
      
   >>   
   >>> This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely the   
   >>> rules that guide the universe.   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)