XPost: sci.lang, alt.philosophy, comp.theory   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/4/2026 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/4/26 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/4/2026 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/3/26 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/3/2026 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/3/26 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/3/2026 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/3/26 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 7:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 4:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure he was.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you actually prove he was right?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why haven't you?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your current arguements have all been based on bad   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him right.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)