XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/5/2025 8:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   > On 2025-12-05 10:21, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >   
   >>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with my observation that "A square   
   >>> is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the basis of the menanings of   
   >>> the words but does not define anything   
   >>   
   >> In other words you are trying to get away with   
   >> saying the dictionaries are entirely comprised   
   >> of meaningless gibberish, and not even a single   
   >> word is defined.   
   >   
   > A dictionary is useless unless you're already fluent in the language in   
   > which it is written.   
   >   
      
   This is generally true for humans. Apparently   
   LLM systems can reverse-engineer semantics   
   when they are given a sufficient number of   
   relations to finite strings, such as a dictionary.   
      
   > If you think otherwise, go to your local library and check out a   
   > (monolingual) dictionary of Hindi, Chinese, or any other language you're   
   > not familiar with and see how successful you are at learning the   
   > meanings of any words in that language just by reading a dictionary.   
   >   
      
   Apparently an LLM reverse-engineered that meaning   
   of some document only having the document as its basis.   
      
   > Monolingual dictionaries target people who already have a vocabulary in   
   > the given language and who understand how at least some of the   
   > vocabulary of that language relates to the empirical world. To someone   
   > who does not they really would be just "meaningless gibberish".   
   >   
   > André   
   >   
      
   I was referring to a knowledge ontology   
   (like a type hierarchy) where every single word   
   it fully defined in formalized Natural language   
   like Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates.   
      
   It would contain the entire body of basic   
   (thus indivisible) facts of general knowledge   
   and a set of rules for any combination of   
   semantic logical entailment from these basis   
   facts.   
      
   This ends up with the entire body of general   
   knowledge that can be expressed in language.   
      
   It might be a printed book 1000 miles tall.   
   158,400,000,000,000,000 bytes.   
   Only about 100 server racks.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)