XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/7/2025 9:49 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> 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.
>
I am sure happy that LLM systems have conclusively
proved that their assessment of my work is correct
on the basis that they can show all of the details
of how my new ideas are semantically entailed by
accepted definitions in the various fields.
--
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)
|
