XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/8/2025 6:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/7/25 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No you don't, as you have shown by not being able to handle the   
   > statement I gave you.   
   >   
      
   It was your error of insufficiently specifying   
   which of many sense meanings that you intended.   
      
   It was not inherently ambiguity it is lack of   
   sufficient specification.   
      
   --   
   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)