XPost: sci.lang, alt.philosophy, comp.theory   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or more   
   >>>>>> properties in common. These operations from set theory are   
   >>>>>> available: {⊆, ∈}   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language L   
   >>>>>> that has been assigned the semantic property of True. (Similar to   
   >>>>>> a math Axiom).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate   
   >>>>>> foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False only   
   >>>>>> requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain (formal   
   >>>>>> proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> True(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, X)   
   >>>>>> False(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, ~X)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be formalized   
   >>>>> symbolically.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite   
   >>>>> strings of characters.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as   
   >>>>> relations between integers.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 2026 update   
   >>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings   
   >>>> of characters.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This by itself makes   
   >>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>> reliably computable.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you make   
   >>> you system "small".   
   >>>   
   >>> All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are   
   >>> talking about.   
   >>   
   >> That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't   
   >> understand what I am talking about.   
   >   
   > YOU don't know what you are talking about,   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.   
   >> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because   
   >> this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.   
   >   
   > And you are just ignorance cubed.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Here is the same idea in much greater depth   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)   
   >>   
   >   
   > Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.   
   >   
      
   It sure would seem that way to everyone that did   
   not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.   
      
   All of computation can be construed as applying finite   
   string transformation rules to finite string inputs.   
      
   Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of   
   the scope of computation.   
      
   > He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was shown   
   > that it could not.   
   >   
   > It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you are   
   > just repeating the errors that have been discovered.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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)