XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.lang   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/4/2026 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/4/26 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But such strings are not necessarily words, and thus not based on the   
   > "meaning of the words"   
   >   
      
   See that you are pretty smart.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
   > The listing of every arithmatic sum is an infinite set.   
   >   
   > Your example is a listing of unobtainable information, as it it   
   > impossible to EXACTLY measure any of those quantities, and thus no   
   > "exact" position is possible.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is showing you don't understand what you are talking   
   > about.   
   >   
   > Formal Systems are NOT about the physical universe, but the Formal   
   > system they define. These might help us build better models of the "real   
   > world" and Philosophers might argue about which systems are the best for   
   > that, but that is outside the domain of the formal system.   
   >   
      
   I reframed the analytic/synthetic distinction   
   to make truth computable on the basis of relations   
   between finite strings for the whole body of knowledge   
   that can be expressed in language to the exact extent   
   of these encoded relations.   
      
   It would begin with the subset of everything ever   
   published and extract the general knowledge from that.   
   It will require an upper knowledge ontology as its   
   starting basis. I initially referred to this as   
   bootstrap English many years ago.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)