XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com   
      
   On 07/12/2025 05:32, Python wrote:   
   > Le 07/12/2025 à 04:50, polcott a écrit :   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Sure. They even know about spoons eating dogs:   
   >   
   > In the realm of Silverwood, enchanted spoons woke up one morning   
   > with a strange craving: they wanted to eat dogs' *worries*.   
   > Not the dogs themselves—just the glowing little anxieties   
   > floating above every canine like tiny lanterns.   
   >   
   > The spoons marched across the land, clinking like metal crickets.   
   > Dogs barked in confusion. Humans panicked. Spoons vibrated   
   > with excitement.   
   >   
   > But when they reached Brindle, the oldest shepherd dog,   
   > his worries were so wise and deep that the spoons swallowed them   
   > and instantly became thoughtful, sleepy, and kind.   
   >   
   > "Enough eating," declared the Chief Spoon.   
   > "From now on, we walk the dogs."   
   >   
   > And so Silverwood became the only kingdom where spoons   
   > could be seen taking dogs for evening strolls.   
   >   
      
   That makes sense - the spoons would be especially well suited to cleaning up   
   when their companions   
   poop, as all civilised nations require!   
      
   Mike.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)