XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/7/2025 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.40:   
   >> On 12/6/2025 3:01 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.   
   >>   
   >> You like Quine could not tell the difference between   
   >> an acyclic directed graph and one with cycles.   
   >   
   > It is a sin to lie about other people.   
   >   
      
   My above statement was woefully insufficiently   
   precise thus probably untrue. I retract it now.   
      
   In the case of Bachelor(x) versus ~Married(x) most   
   people in the world mindlessly agree with Quine   
   that their relationship is circular.   
      
   Rudolf Carnap immediately proved otherwise and not   
   even one person could understand otherwise the   
   received view would not agree with Quine.   
      
   https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf   
      
   Carnap was not clear enough. I correct this.   
      
   Bachelor(x) is a stipulated relation defined   
   in terms of: ~Married(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Male(x)   
   It acquires all of its meaning from those terms   
   as a multiple inheritance relation in an acyclic   
   graph of types.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)