XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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?   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able   
   >>>>> to be computed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because   
   >>>>> you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)