XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/30/2025 9:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/30/25 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/30/2025 8:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/29/25 6:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>>> On 29/12/2025 23:11, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> He wants all knowledge to form a Tree, but since it doesn't have a   
   >>>>> root,   
   >>>>> it can't be.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It does have a root: "There is knowledge".   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> And how is that understood without a meaning for the term.   
   >>>   
   >>> He wants a non-axiomatic system, based on meaning in the system.   
   >>>   
   >>> The problem is that just doesn't work.   
   >>   
   >> Th Root is defined in terms of its constituents.   
   >   
   > In other word, by a cycle.   
   >   
   > Note, you are also changing your goalposts, as your original claim was   
   > about a DAG of KNOWLEDGE, not TYPES.   
   >   
   > It seems you don't understand what you are trying to talk about.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> {Thing} is divided into   
   >>    {physically existing thing}   
   >>    {Mentally existing thing}   
   >>      {Coherent ideas}   
   >>      {Incoherent ideas}   
   >   
      
   I just proved that I do understand.   
      
   --   
   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)