XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/8/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/8/25 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > What did I insufficeintly specify?   
   >   
      
   Troll   
      
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)