XPost: sci.lang, alt.philosophy, comp.theory   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.   
   >   
      
   He may have admitted it but he was not actually   
   been proven wrong.   
      
   >>   
   >> All of computation can be construed as applying finite   
   >> string transformation rules to finite string inputs.   
   >   
   > Yes, but some results are not computable.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of   
   >> the scope of computation.   
   >   
   > You don't understand what you are talking about.   
   >   
   > Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope.   
   >   
      
   See that you proved that you do understand   
   what I am talking about.   
      
   > But not all transformations are computable, as some need an infinite   
   > number o them.   
   >   
      
   Right like Goldbach conjecture.   
      
   > You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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)