XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.21:
>>> On 12/5/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.46:
>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.09:
>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 17.26:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dbush kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 20.19:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a semantic tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, "semantic tautology" is just another term
>>>>>>>>>>> for "definition".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A definition gives a new word for something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a verbose expression that may take
>>>>>>>>>> some effort
>>>>>>>>>> to understand but once understood is onderstood to say nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology might be considered the
>>>>>>>>> complete definition of a a word by providing
>>>>>>>>> the complete definition of every word in this
>>>>>>>>> definition recursively all the way down until
>>>>>>>>> every one of these words is completely defined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean any expression of language
>>>>>>>> that is proven true entirely on the basis of its meaning expressed
>>>>>>>> in language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This includes expressions that do not define anything.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, "A square is not a triangle" is seen to be true on the
>>>>>> basis of the meanings of the words but does not define anything.
>>>>
>>>>> That is deduced from the definitions of square and triangle.
>>>>> They are defined with mutually exclusive properties.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> There are two kinds of dictionaries. One kind is dictionaries that
>> define words of one language in terms of words of another language.
>> There is no circularity there. The other kind describes the meanings
>> of wirds in terms of words of the same language. They are circular
>> and the descriptions are often incomplete or inexact. Dictionaries
>> of this kind are indeed useless to readers who don't already know
>> the meanings of most of the words from other sources.
>>
>
> This is where Peter just falls apart, as he doesn't understand how
> formal langagues work.
>
No. It is that you don't understand how
Montague Grammar or Knowledge Ontologies work.
Thankfully LLM systems know all about these things.
--
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)
|
