XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/7/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/7/25 6:15 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/7/2025 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/7/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/6/25 10:50 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/6/2025 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/6/25 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No, it is you who doesn't know what he is saying and shows he is   
   >>>>> just a liar.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If that was true you could show that with reasoning.   
   >>>> By not showing the reasoning you show that is not true.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You have ADMITED that you retain the right to change the meaning of   
   >>> word.   
   >>>   
   >>> DENY THAT IF YOU WANT.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you can change the meaning of words, then semantics are worthless,   
   >>> as meaning is broken,.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sorry, but you are just showing that you don't understand what you   
   >>> are talking about.   
   >>>   
   >>> I will note aas proof: a part you snipped said:   
   >>>   
   >>>  >> I will issue you a challenge here, and failure to reply will be   
   >>> an admission that you know you are just a stupid liar.   
   >>>   
   >>>  >> Show how the Montegue Grammer can unambigously represent the   
   >>> meaning of the following sentence:   
   >>>   
   >>>  >> She showed she was a big girl.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> When you begin a reply with anything besides   
   >> reasoning I will always ignore the rest.   
   >   
   > So, what did I say that WASN'T "Reasoning"   
   >   
   >>   
   >> My system (like the Cyc project) has a unique   
   >> GUID for each unique sense meaning of every word.   
   >   
   > Can't, because there are not finitely enumerable.   
   >   
   > As I asked, show the full set of UUIDs for the word "big"   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I must first know your intended sense meanings.   
   >> showed: seems to mean demonstrated   
   >   
   > That isn't how it works.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> big girl: seems to mean something like   
   >> average maturity for a 10 year old girl   
   >   
   > Thats ONE meaning. That is your problem, you don't understand the   
   > complexity of Natural Language.   
   >   
      
   I understand how to eliminate ambiguity by   
   mathematically formalizing the body of   
   general knowledge as relations between GUID's.   
      
   --   
   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)