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.
On 1/3/26 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
All deciders essentially: Transform finite stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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 statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able to be computed.
All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.
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 statement, or its inverse MUST be true,
On 1/3/2026 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
All deciders essentially: Transform finite stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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.
That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able to
be computed.
All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because
you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.
Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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.
That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able to
be computed.
All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because
you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.
Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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.
That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able to
be computed.
All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because
you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.
Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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.
That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able
to be computed.
All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because >>>>> you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.
Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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?
That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able >>>>>> to be computed.
All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert,
because you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient >>>>>> errors.
Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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.
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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,
After all, how can the meaning of words solve the Goldbach conjecture?
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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"
On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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"
It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.
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"
Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes anything new
that can be learned.
And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the
infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as we are fininte.
This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely the--
rules that guide the universe.
On 1/4/2026 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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"
It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.
Not when relations between finite strings directly
encode all of the underlying semantics and semantic
entailment is the only inference step allowed.
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"
Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes anything
new that can be learned.
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
at any moment in time defines a precise finite set of relations
between finite strings.
And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the
infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as we
are fininte.
The result of infinite proofs is excluded from
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely the
rules that guide the universe.
On 1/4/26 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
inherently computable.
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"
It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.
Not when relations between finite strings directly
encode all of the underlying semantics and semantic
entailment is the only inference step allowed.
But you can't do that.
And, the only "language" you can use is the formal language of the
formal system.
And the meanings must be the actual meanings as applied to thosse strings.
And, as has been shown, if your system is expresive enough, and your
"all general knowledge" is, it has been shown that NEW meanings can be expressed encoded into the symbology.
So, your arguemtn is just based on making an assumption about something
that can be done.
If you disagree, try to actually DEFINE such a system (not just describe
in general terms how to do it, but ACTUALLY DO IT, and show how you
encode even the knowledge of the Natural Numbers in the way you are
trying to define.
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"
Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes anything
new that can be learned.
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
at any moment in time defines a precise finite set of relations
between finite strings.
Nope. As an UNBOUNDED amount CAN be expressed, even just tring to
express basic math, since the numbers themselves are unbouned.
And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the
infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as we
are fininte.
The result of infinite proofs is excluded from
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
Right, infinite proofs where never allowed.
Infinite sequence of steps to create truth, on the other hand, is
allowed. Thus statments like "No Number exist that ...." can be true,
but might be unprovable.
Again, you show an intrinsic confusion over Truth and Proof/Knowledge.
This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely the
rules that guide the universe.
On 1/4/2026 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently computable.
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"
It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.
Not when relations between finite strings directly
encode all of the underlying semantics and semantic
entailment is the only inference step allowed.
But you can't do that.
And, the only "language" you can use is the formal language of the
formal system.
And the meanings must be the actual meanings as applied to thosse
strings.
And, as has been shown, if your system is expresive enough, and your
"all general knowledge" is, it has been shown that NEW meanings can be
expressed encoded into the symbology.
So, your arguemtn is just based on making an assumption about
something that can be done.
If you disagree, try to actually DEFINE such a system (not just
describe in general terms how to do it, but ACTUALLY DO IT, and show
how you encode even the knowledge of the Natural Numbers in the way
you are trying to define.
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.
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"
Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes anything
new that can be learned.
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
at any moment in time defines a precise finite set of relations
between finite strings.
Nope. As an UNBOUNDED amount CAN be expressed, even just tring to
express basic math, since the numbers themselves are unbouned.
Even the exact position of every single atom of
matter relative to the exact center of the Earth
at any given instant in time is a finite set when
the precision is one centillionth of a millimeter.
And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the
infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as we
are fininte.
The result of infinite proofs is excluded from
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
Right, infinite proofs where never allowed.
Infinite sequence of steps to create truth, on the other hand, is
allowed. Thus statments like "No Number exist that ...." can be true,
but might be unprovable.
Again, you show an intrinsic confusion over Truth and Proof/Knowledge.
Knowledge is inherently finite.
This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely the
rules that guide the universe.
On 1/4/26 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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 stringNope.
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently computable.
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"
It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.
Not when relations between finite strings directly
encode all of the underlying semantics and semantic
entailment is the only inference step allowed.
But you can't do that.
And, the only "language" you can use is the formal language of the
formal system.
And the meanings must be the actual meanings as applied to thosse
strings.
And, as has been shown, if your system is expresive enough, and your
"all general knowledge" is, it has been shown that NEW meanings can
be expressed encoded into the symbology.
So, your arguemtn is just based on making an assumption about
something that can be done.
If you disagree, try to actually DEFINE such a system (not just
describe in general terms how to do it, but ACTUALLY DO IT, and show
how you encode even the knowledge of the Natural Numbers in the way
you are trying to define.
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.
But such strings are not necessarily words, and thus not based on the "meaning of the words"
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"
Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes anything >>>>> new that can be learned.
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
at any moment in time defines a precise finite set of relations
between finite strings.
Nope. As an UNBOUNDED amount CAN be expressed, even just tring to
express basic math, since the numbers themselves are unbouned.
Even the exact position of every single atom of
matter relative to the exact center of the Earth
at any given instant in time is a finite set when
the precision is one centillionth of a millimeter.
So?
The listing of every arithmatic sum is an infinite set.
Your example is a listing of unobtainable information, as it it
impossible to EXACTLY measure any of those quantities, and thus no
"exact" position is possible.
All you are doing is showing you don't understand what you are talking about.
Formal Systems are NOT about the physical universe, but the Formal
system they define. These might help us build better models of the "real world" and Philosophers might argue about which systems are the best for that, but that is outside the domain of the formal system.
And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the
infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as we >>>>> are fininte.
The result of infinite proofs is excluded from
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
Right, infinite proofs where never allowed.
Infinite sequence of steps to create truth, on the other hand, is
allowed. Thus statments like "No Number exist that ...." can be true,
but might be unprovable.
Again, you show an intrinsic confusion over Truth and Proof/Knowledge.
Knowledge is inherently finite.
But Knowable is not, and neither is True.
Again, your problem is you confuse your systems, trying to talk about "Truth", when you are actually thinking about Known.
This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely the >>>>> rules that guide the universe.
On 1/4/2026 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/4/26 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/4/2026 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/3/26 9:58 PM, olcott wrote:
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.Nope.
Thus making
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently computable.
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"
It also excludes true on the basis of logical reasoning.
Not when relations between finite strings directly
encode all of the underlying semantics and semantic
entailment is the only inference step allowed.
But you can't do that.
And, the only "language" you can use is the formal language of the
formal system.
And the meanings must be the actual meanings as applied to thosse
strings.
And, as has been shown, if your system is expresive enough, and your
"all general knowledge" is, it has been shown that NEW meanings can
be expressed encoded into the symbology.
So, your arguemtn is just based on making an assumption about
something that can be done.
If you disagree, try to actually DEFINE such a system (not just
describe in general terms how to do it, but ACTUALLY DO IT, and show
how you encode even the knowledge of the Natural Numbers in the way
you are trying to define.
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.
But such strings are not necessarily words, and thus not based on the
"meaning of the words"
See that you are pretty smart.
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" >>>>>>>
Which isn't what logic is about, and by necessity excludes
anything new that can be learned.
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
at any moment in time defines a precise finite set of relations
between finite strings.
Nope. As an UNBOUNDED amount CAN be expressed, even just tring to
express basic math, since the numbers themselves are unbouned.
Even the exact position of every single atom of
matter relative to the exact center of the Earth
at any given instant in time is a finite set when
the precision is one centillionth of a millimeter.
So?
The listing of every arithmatic sum is an infinite set.
Your example is a listing of unobtainable information, as it it
impossible to EXACTLY measure any of those quantities, and thus no
"exact" position is possible.
All you are doing is showing you don't understand what you are talking
about.
Formal Systems are NOT about the physical universe, but the Formal
system they define. These might help us build better models of the
"real world" and Philosophers might argue about which systems are the
best for that, but that is outside the domain of the formal system.
I reframed the analytic/synthetic distinction
to make truth computable on the basis of relations
between finite strings for the whole body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language to the exact extent
of these encoded relations.
It would begin with the subset of everything ever
published and extract the general knowledge from that.
It will require an upper knowledge ontology as its
starting basis. I initially referred to this as
bootstrap English many years ago.
And, it isn't just the Liar Paradox, but the possibility of the
infinite, as Proof and Knowledge can't proceed from infinity, as
we are fininte.
The result of infinite proofs is excluded from
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language"
Right, infinite proofs where never allowed.
Infinite sequence of steps to create truth, on the other hand, is
allowed. Thus statments like "No Number exist that ...." can be
true, but might be unprovable.
Again, you show an intrinsic confusion over Truth and Proof/Knowledge. >>>>
Knowledge is inherently finite.
But Knowable is not, and neither is True.
Again, your problem is you confuse your systems, trying to talk about
"Truth", when you are actually thinking about Known.
This means that your system can't handle Mathematics, or likely
the rules that guide the universe.
Knowledge is inherently finite.
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted:
[ ... ]
Knowledge is inherently finite.In your 28 years of spouting this stuff, has anyone at all been convinced?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:04:04 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,733 |
| Posted today: | 1 |