XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/26/2025 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/26/25 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/26/2025 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/26/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> Whenever it can be verified that correct semantic   
   >>>> entailment is applied to the semantic meaning of   
   >>>> expressions of language then what-so-ever conclusion   
   >>>> is derived is a necessary consequence of this   
   >>>> expression of language.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You just don't know what that means, because to you, words don't   
   >>> actualy need to mean what you use them as.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> *You just don't know what that means* or you could show my mistake.   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> All you are doing is using gobbledygook words to try to hide your lies.   
   >>>   
   >>> You don't even know what a program is, or how its input is defined.   
   >>   
   >> The gist of   
   >> *correct semantic entailment*   
   >> is shown by the syllogism that directly encodes   
   >> its semantics as categorical propositions.   
   >>   
   >> No separate model theory nonsense where true   
   >> and provable can diverge.   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition   
   >>   
   >   
   > Your problem is that "Correct Semantic Entailment" first requires you to   
   > have the RIGHT DEFINITIONS.   
   >   
   > That means for terms-of-art, you know the term-of-art menaning.   
   >   
      
   All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   {Accept, Reject} values.   
      
   > That is what the "Semantic" part of the term refers to.   
   >   
   > Since you have shown you don't, it means you don't know how to do this.   
   >   
   > Sorry, until you learn what Truth means, (and what a program is) you are   
   > just locked out of your arguement due to your stupidity,   
   >   
      
   Four LLM system all agree that this breaks undecidability   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
      
   > One of the problems you run into is that in a "Formal Theory", the   
   > Semantics of EVERYTHING in the theory are formally defined by the   
   > system. and any meaning from outside the system is just meaningless in   
   > the system.   
   >   
   > Thus, your attempts to bring in Natural Language meaning is just unsound   
   > logic.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)