Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 59,230 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Mikko    |
|    Making all knowledge expressed in langua    |
|    10 Feb 26 07:37:02    |
      XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 2/10/2026 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:       > On 09/02/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:       >> On 2/9/2026 8:57 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>> On 07/02/2026 18:43, olcott wrote:       >>>>       >>>> Conventional logic and math have been paralyzed for       >>>> many decades by trying to force-fit semantically       >>>> ill-formed expressions into the box of True or False.       >>>       >>> Logic is not paralyzed. Separating semantics from inference rules       >>> ensures that semantic problems don't affect the study of proofs       >>> and provability.       >>       >> Then you end up with screwy stuff such as the psychotic       >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion       >       > That you call it psychotic does not make it less useful. Often an       > indirect proof is simpler than a direct one, and therefore more       > convincing. But without the principle of explosion it might be       > harder or even impossible to find one, depending on what there is       > instead.       >              Completely replacing the foundation of truth conditional       semantics with proof theoretic semantics then an expression       is "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       only to the extent that its meaning is entirely comprised       of its inferential relations to other expressions of that       language. AKA linguistic truth determined by semantic       entailment specified syntactically.              Well-founded proof-theoretic semantics reject expressions       lacking a "well-founded justification tree" as meaningless.       ∀x (~Provable(T, x) ⇔ Meaningless(T, x))              By combining the ideas from about seven papers together       we can derive: ∀x (Provable(x) ⇒ True(x))              Makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.                     --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca