XPost: comp.theory, sci.lang, sci.math   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/3/2026 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/3/26 9:44 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/3/2026 7:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/3/26 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/3/2026 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/3/26 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/3/2026 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/3/26 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Thus making   
   >>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>>>>> inherently computable.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Nope.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> How does that answer the question of the truth of the statement:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> All Even Number greater than 2 are the sum of two primes.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That is not a member of the body of knowledge.   
   >>>>>> My system only applies to the body of knowledge.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And thus is admittedly, not a logic system, which is about a body   
   >>>>> of truths derived from axioms and rules.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In fact, you system can never learn anything new, as that wasn't   
   >>>>> part of that body, so isn't allowed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So, all you are doing is admitting you have been on a wrong track   
   >>>>> for decades, you you were never actually looking at logic systems.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We are probably already too late and the world   
   >>>> will be killed by climate change hired liars.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My system could have prevented that but having   
   >>>> trollish fun carried more weight than preventing   
   >>>> the end of life an Earth.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope, your system of lies is what you say is causing the problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your problem is you don't understand what truth actually is.   
   >>>   
   >>> This is shown just by the fact that you beleive the LLMs you talk with.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Do you understand the correct semantic entailment   
   >> on the basis of expressions of language that are   
   >> stipulated to be true derives conclusions that are   
   >> necessarily true?   
   >>   
   >> YES you understand   
   >> or   
   >> NO you fail to understand   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yes, but not ALL truths can be found that way,   
   >   
      
   I agree "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   excludes "true on the basis of direct physical sensations"   
      
   > After all, how can the meaning of words solve the Goldbach conjecture?   
   >   
      
   I also agree   
      
   It is only the dirty trick of the Liar Paradox   
   that has kept True(L, x) from being defined for   
      
   "the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"   
      
   --   
   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)