XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/4/2026 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/4/26 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >> It is categorically impossible to derive any element   
   >> of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in   
   >> language that is not entirely comprised of some relation   
   >> between finite strings.   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
      
   That is the conclusive proof that I am correct.   
      
   > The problem is we want to derive things that aren't yet in the body of   
   > knowledge.   
   >   
      
   If you want to know the name of your wife's   
   mother and you have not met your wife yet   
   then the answer is not available by any means.   
      
   Once the body of general knowledge is fully   
   populated an intelligent system can derive   
   brand new knowledge on the basis of semantic   
   entailment from this basis.   
      
   > And, the relationship between finite strings is often not what you   
   > consider the "meaning of the words", as the strings often aren't just   
   > words.   
   >   
      
   I made sure to never limit it to words.   
      
   >>   
   >>> You have a concept for a worthless system to record knowledge that   
   >>> you can interograte to see if something was already known.   
   >>   
   >> That you require an acceptable system to be the   
   >> omniscient mind of God is a category error.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That you require the system to be impotent, and not able to talk about   
   > something unknow makes it worthless.   
      
      
   --   
   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)