XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: Bonita.Montero@gmail.com   
      
   Am 29.12.2025 um 21:27 schrieb Richard Damon:   
   > On 12/29/25 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/29/2025 1:50 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:   
   >>> Am 29.12.2025 um 16:25 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>> That you say that without bothering to understand   
   >>>> the full depth of what I am saying is very callous.   
   >>>   
   >>> If someone thinks 30.000 hours about a dozen lines of code he is sick.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> My 28 year goal has been to make   
   >> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >> reliably computable.   
   >>   
   >> *Here is a key element of that*   
   >> A system such all semantic meaning of the formal   
   >> system is directly encoded in the syntax of the   
   >> formal language of the formal system making   
   >> ∀x ∈ L (Provable(L,x) ≡ True(L,x))   
   >>   
   >   
   > In other words, you wasted your life trying to do something you don't   
   > understand.   
   >   
   > Since in your system, words do not need to have their actual meaning,   
   > NOTHING can be truthfully derived from the words.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you fundamentally don't understand the basics of what   
   > you are talking about, because you CHOSE to remain ignorant of the   
   > field, and chose instead to try to derive meaning by GUESSING without   
   > knowledge, and calling it "first principles", not even knowing what   
   > that means.   
      
   Engaging with Pete's arguments in a meaningful way is just as stupid as   
   his delusion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)