XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   On 13/12/2025 17:55, olcott wrote:   
   > On 12/13/2025 5:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05:   
   >>> On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15:   
   >>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems that divide   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all is fixed!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as pure   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Richard Montague.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of English semantics.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of billions   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Human(x).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'. That's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a stipulation involving two predicates.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how knowledge ontologies are represented. So this   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't an example in anyway relevant to the discussion.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple types" in a footnote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which says that the objects of thought (or, in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another interpretation, the symbolic expressions) are   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divided into types, namely: individuals, properties   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of individuals, relations between individuals,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of such relations   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away every sentence that would have made it incomplete.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their truth and their proof is simply walking   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the knowledge tree.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL subjects of thoughts are defined   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other subjects of thoughts then   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no subjects of thoughts.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)