On 12/15/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>> When dealing with possible infinite sets, one definition of "same
>> size" is that there can be a bijection made between the two sets, i.e.
>> you can build a one-to-one mapping between the sets such that EVERY
>> element in one set is mapped to PRECISELY a unique element in the
>> other. If that can be done, then the sets are defined to be the same
>> size.
>>
>> Note, there may be other mappings between the sets that have left
>> overs on one side or the other (even an infinite number of them), but
>> if a bijection exists, then they are the same size.
>>
>> This definition also works for finite sets.
>>
>> Note also, that when you get into infinities, many (if not most) of
>> the comfortable rules we are used to just
>>
>> This IS a field that I have studied (an not just learned by rote) over
>> the many years of my life.
>>
>
> If you did not actively examine the philosophical foundations of the
> notion of analytic truth itself and make sure that all of the rules of
> math and logic are consistent with these foundations then you merely
> have learned-by-rote knowledge of these things.
>
> Addendum you could not have possibly have done this because the
> philosophical foundations of the notion of analytic truth itself have
> never previously been correctly established
>

No, the problem is that Mathematics goes BEYOND the constraints of
limiting its definition of Truth to JUST what is analytically proveable.

You are making the INCORRECT assumption that only Analytical Truth applies.

You system confuses Analytical Proof with actual Truth.

>
>> I wil also note that I have a minor learning disability that makes it
>
> Please elaborate on this I really want to have much more empathy for you.

A do not learn things by "Rote", I need to understand WHY something is
true to be able to easily remember it.

I have very limited ability to remember just "random" facts, but when I
can see an order to the system, my brain can process and store it.

Typically, I remember a few basic rules, and rapidly rederive the
combinations of them, until eventually the combinations work themselves
into memory store.

>
>> very hard to learn things "by rote", but I need to have at least good
>> understanding of WHY things work the way they do to remember them.
>>
>

On 12/15/22 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/14/22 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 8:21 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 9:59:47 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Theorem 1.
>>>>> Every valid logical expression is provable. Equivalently, every
>>>>> logical
>>>>> expression is either satisfiable or refutable.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/#ComThe
>>>>>
>>>>> The conventional definition of incompleteness:
>>>>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))
>>>>>
>>>>> Should actually be written as:
>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>> thus abolishing Incompleteness.
>>>>    Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>> <=> Valid(φ) ↔ TRUE
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Correction*
>>>   True(φ) ↔ (T ⊢ φ)
>>> ¬True(φ) ↔ (T ⊬ φ)
>>> False(φ) ↔ (T ⊢ ¬φ)
>>
>> Which since you say Godel's G is ¬True but also not False.
>>
>> Since G is a statement of the form T ⊬ x, that means that since G is
>> ¬True, that T ⊬ x, and since G is ¬False we have that ¬(T ⊢ ¬φ)
>>
>> Which means that (T ⊬ ¬x) and from the previous (T ⊬ x)
>>
>> Thus either Provability (since that is the sort of statement x is)
>> isn't a truth bearer, or x is a statement that can neither be proven
>> or disproven.
>>
>
> Because the Gödel incompleteness theorem forms an exact isomorphism of
> Tarski's undefinability theorem any refutation of Tarski is a refutation
> of Gödel. The formalized Liar paradox is an exact isomorphism:

So you actuallky need to refute Tarski, which means you need to actually
understand it,

>
> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
>     ~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
> x is true if and only if x is unprovable
>
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
> G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
> G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
>
>
>

On 12/15/22 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/14/22 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 11:02 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 18:06:22 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 9:24 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 16:21:35 UTC+2,
>>>>>> wyni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>> <=> Valid(φ) ↔ TRUE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Valid(φ) is a tautology.
>>>>>>> This explains why you think your H is correct.
>>>>>> It's only a tautology in systems in which excluded middle holds.
>>>>>>
>>>>> All expressions of formal or natural language are
>>>>> (a) True
>>>>> (b) False
>>>>> (c) Not a truth bearer
>>>> Lets try that again...
>>>>
>>>> (a) Truth-bearer
>>>>      1. True
>>>>      2. False
>>>> (b) Not a truth bearer
>>>> (c) As yet undetermined whether (a); or (b)
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>> If the only way to determine that the above is true is to test every
>>> element of the set of natural numbers then it may be (c).
>>>
>>
>> So you accept that some statement might be neither a Truth-Bearer or
>> not a Truth-Beared?
>>
>> Or are you just conflating KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.
>>
>
> Every expression of language is either true / false or not a truth bearer.

Thus nothing is in your category (c) with reguards to its TRUTH. Either
the statement IS a Truth Bearer, so it is either True of False, or it is
NOT a Truth Bearer.

Your (c) is a statement of KNOWLEDGE, not Truth. We might not KNOW if a
statement is a Truth Bearer or not, but we do know there is no middle
ground about that.

And, we know that a statement of the form that "X is Provable" or "x is
not probable" is ALWAYS a Truth Bearer,

Thus Since G is a statement about the provablility of a statement, it IS
a truth bearer.

Thus, since it can't be false, as that means you are accepting that it
is possible to Prove an False Statement, it must be True, and thus must
not be provable.

>
>> The Truth of a statement doesn't change just because we find the proof
>> for it.
>
> Until an expression of language can be correctly determined to be true
> or false it is not an element of the set of knowledge.
>
>

Right, KNOWLEDGE, but it still have a Truth Value, that value is just
unknown.

On 12/15/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/14/22 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

>> Nope. That is just your failure to understand what it Truth, and are
>> confusing it with Knowledge.
>>
>> Your definition lead to inconsistencies like ending up with statements
>> for which no proof exists but are not Unprovable.
>>
>
> True/false/not a truth bearer/currently unknown

"Current;y Unknown" thus you are talking KNOWLEDGE, not Truth.

>
> Inconsistencies are screened out as not elements of the set of truth in
> the correction to the foundation of analytical truth that I propose.
>
>

Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.

On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it not an
>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be a
>>>>>> true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the implied
>>>>>> meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology, which must
>>>>>> be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>
>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>
>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>
>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
>>>> groups.
>>>>
>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>
>>
>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>
>> YOU FAIL.
>>
>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>> Tautology.
>>
>
> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
interpreation put into the words.

>
>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>
>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>
>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>
> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.

So you still don't understand what I am saying.

I guess you are just proving you are stupid.

A cat is a feline
A cat is a mammal

A dog is a canine
A dog is a mammal

a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups

a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
>

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 00:09:38 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:19:44 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Skep Dick <skepd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 03:20:24 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On 12/14/22 8:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >> >> > On Wednesday, 14 December 2022 at 14:24:00 UTC+2, richar...@gmail..com wrote:
> >> >> >> And yes, they are all the "same size" because you can make the bijection
> >> >> >> between them, even though "logic" seems to say that one is bigger than
> >> >> >> another.
> >> >> > In other news...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [0,2..] ∪ [1,3..] ↔ ℕ
> >> >> >
> >> >> > SIZE([0,2..]) + SIZE([1,3..]) = SIZE(ℕ)
> >> >> > SIZE([0,2..]) = SIZE([1,3..])
> >> >> > SIZE([0,2..]) = SIZE(ℕ)
> >> >> > SIZE([1,3..]) = SIZE(ℕ)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Houston, we have a problem!
> >> >>
> >> >> And whats the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since all the SIZEs are "Countable Infinite", there is no problem,
> >> >> because of the derived rules of mathematics of infinities.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no problem that x + x = x, if x is an infinity.
> >> >
> >> > The problem is (x + x = x) ↔ (x + x - x = x - x) ↔ ( x = x - x) ↔ (x = 0)
> >>
> >> Seriously? You think every quantity must follow the rules you learned
> >> as a child? Of course I know you don't think so, so I'm wondering what
> >> your point it. Just chatting?
> >
> > My point is that there is no point.
> That's another way of saying you'd like to have a chat.
It's interesting you've chosen to assign that meaning to a phrase open to interpretation.

Are you telling me you want to have a chat?

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:19 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/15/22 8:05 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 15:00:53 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> And with that sort of base, you can know nothing, so your system becomes
> >> worthless.
> >
> > What is the objective arbiter for "worth" ?
> >
> That it can generate something you value.
What's the objective arbiter of "value"?

> Since a system that can't actually show anything can't generate
> anything, it can't generate anything of value.
That's such a weird conclusion! Surely, a system that can show that anything can generate anything then it will most certainly will generate valuable things. As well as non-valuable things.

You just have to sort the valuable from the non-valuable!

All you need is a classification rule to separate the valuable from the non-valuable. This should be easy for you - you love rules!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:33 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those properties.
> >>
> >> That is one of the problems with infinities.
> >>
> >> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
> >> which they don't.
> >
> > Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
> actual information or knowledge in such a system.

But what you say is not true. Contradictions don't cause explosions in my system. They only cause explosions in your system.

It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?

You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to separate them.

You don't know the (binary) classification rule for recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.

On 12/15/2022 11:28 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>
> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to separate them.
>
> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>
>

Good point.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be
>>>>>>> a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
>>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
>>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
>>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>
>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
>>>>> groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>
>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>
>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>> Tautology.
>>>
>>
>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>
> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
> but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
> interpreation put into the words.
>
>>
>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>
>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>
>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>
>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>
>
> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>
> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>

animal
|
mammal
| |
| canine
| |
| dog
|
feline
|
cat

> A cat is a feline
> A cat is a mammal
>
> A dog is a canine
> A dog is a mammal
>
> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>
> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 08:04:17 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
> >>>>>>> not an
> >>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be
> >>>>>>> a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
> >>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
> >>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <sarcasm>
> >>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
> >>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
> >>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
> >>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
> >>>>>> </sarcasm>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
> >>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
> >>>>> statment of existance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
> >>>>> Fallacies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
> >>>>> groups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
> >>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
> >>>
> >>> YOU FAIL.
> >>>
> >>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
> >>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
> >>> Tautology.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
> >> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
> >
> > Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
> > but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
> > interpreation put into the words.
> >
> >>
> >>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
> >>>
> >>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
> >>>
> >>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
> >>
> >> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
> >> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
> >
> >
> > So you still don't understand what I am saying.
> >
> > I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
> >
> animal
> |
> mammal
> | |
> | canine
> | |
> | dog
> |
> feline
> |
> cat
> > A cat is a feline
> > A cat is a mammal
> >
> > A dog is a canine
> > A dog is a mammal
> >
> > a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
> >
> > a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
> >>
> >
So what are you going to do when you are dealing with a many-sorted logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-sorted_logic

e.g things "belonging" to multiple parents.

where would you put the node "carnivore" vs "herbivore" vs "omnivore" ?

On 12/15/2022 10:19 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:33 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those properties.
>>>>
>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>> which they don't.
>>>
>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
>> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
>> actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>
> But what you say is not true. Contradictions don't cause explosions in my system. They only cause explosions in your system.
>
> It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.

So how does your system know/determine if it might have/encounter a
contradiction? Is it always correct in this? What do we know about your
system in re consistency, completeness, soundness, provability
limitations, and all the other properties whose definitions we misuse in
USENET newsgroups? Please explain using ROUND words; we're all curious.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 09:25:15 UTC+2, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>Is it always correct in this? What do we know about your system in re consistency, completeness, soundness, provability
> limitations, and all the other properties whose definitions we misuse in
> USENET newsgroups?
Please provide your binary classification rule for use vs misuse.

It's difficult to determine what you are asking when you keep drawing these moral distinctions.

On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>
> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to separate them.
>
> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>
>

But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of the
nature of Truth.

Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and False
(or not True).

On 12/16/22 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be
>>>>>>>> a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
>>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
>>>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
>>>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
>>>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>
>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>>> Tautology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>
>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
>> but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
>> interpreation put into the words.
>>
>>>
>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>
>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>
>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>
>>
>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>
>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>
>
> animal
>   |
> mammal
>   | |
>   | canine
>   | |
>   | dog
>   |
> feline
>   |
>  cat
>
>> A cat is a feline
>> A cat is a mammal
>>
>> A dog is a canine
>> A dog is a mammal
>>
>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>
>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
>>>
>>
>

Whch means that the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
groups" NOT a Tautology, but possibly an True Analytical Expression

On 12/16/22 12:13 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:19 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 8:05 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 15:00:53 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> And with that sort of base, you can know nothing, so your system becomes
>>>> worthless.
>>>
>>> What is the objective arbiter for "worth" ?
>>>
>> That it can generate something you value.
> What's the objective arbiter of "value"?

The collective agreement. Can you exchange it for something else of value.

>
>> Since a system that can't actually show anything can't generate
>> anything, it can't generate anything of value.
> That's such a weird conclusion! Surely, a system that can show that anything can generate anything then it will most certainly will generate valuable things. As well as non-valuable things.

No, because the information content of the system is Zero.
>
> You just have to sort the valuable from the non-valuable!

Which isn't possible inside a system if the system has gone inconsistent.

>
> All you need is a classification rule to separate the valuable from the non-valuable. This should be easy for you - you love rules!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

Right, and a system that is inconsistent can't reliably distinquish
between classifications, since everything ends up in every classification.

If you go outside the system, then you are looking at the value of that
"Outside the system" classifier, not the value of the system.

On 12/16/22 12:19 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:33 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those properties.
>>>>
>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>> which they don't.
>>>
>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
>> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
>> actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>
> But what you say is not true. Contradictions don't cause explosions in my system. They only cause explosions in your system.
>
> It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.

Then your system can't do logic.

You don't understand that the Principle of Explosion isn't an INPUT to a
logic system, but something demonstratable from the basic fabric of a
logic system.

You demostrate that you logic systm is worthless by the ilogic it generates.

On 12/16/22 2:25 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 10:19 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:33 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>>>> properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>>> which they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
>>> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
>>> actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>>
>> But what you say is not true. Contradictions don't cause explosions in
>> my system. They only cause explosions in your system.
>>
>> It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the
>> knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.
>
> So how does your system know/determine if it might have/encounter a
> contradiction? Is it always correct in this? What do we know about your
> system in re consistency, completeness, soundness, provability
> limitations, and all the other properties whose definitions we misuse in
> USENET newsgroups? Please explain using ROUND words; we're all curious.

If you can show a statement and its negation are true, you have proved a
contradiction.

It is a proven fact that, given a system with at least nominal power,
that it is impossible to actually prove that it can't be inconsistent.

On 12/16/2022 12:13 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 08:04:17 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
>>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can be
>>>>>>>>> a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
>>>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
>>>>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
>>>>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
>>>>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
>>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>
>>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible interpetation,
>>> but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression, depending on the
>>> interpreation put into the words.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>>
>>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals are
>>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>>
>>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>>
>> animal
>> |
>> mammal
>> | |
>> | canine
>> | |
>> | dog
>> |
>> feline
>> |
>> cat
>>> A cat is a feline
>>> A cat is a mammal
>>>
>>> A dog is a canine
>>> A dog is a mammal
>>>
>>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>>
>>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal groups.
>>>>
>>>
> So what are you going to do when you are dealing with a many-sorted logic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-sorted_logic
>
> e.g things "belonging" to multiple parents.
>
> where would you put the node "carnivore" vs "herbivore" vs "omnivore" ?
>

It looks like you are starting to get it.
Those would be values of the eating_type property of animal.
Properties of a node are its child nodes.

struct
{ char GUID[32]; // The name of a unique concept
uint64_t parent;
std::vector<uint64_t> properties;
};

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/15/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>> which they don't.
>>
>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>
> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
> actual information or knowledge in such a system.

The principle of explosion is incorrect because semantics are ignored.

As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory
statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and
suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven,
e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

axiom CATS ⊂ ANIMALS ⊂ LIVING_THINGS
all cats are animals
all animals are living things
∴ all cats are living things

▷ <is a type of> operator borrowed from UML
CAT ▷ ANIMAL ▷ LIVING_THING

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/15/2022 11:19 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 04:27:33 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/15/22 8:04 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 14:59:36 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Nope, because in mathematics with infinites you don't have those properties.
>>>>
>>>> That is one of the problems with infinities.
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming that all the properties of the finite numbers hold,
>>>> which they don't.
>>>
>>> Where's the objective arbiter on such things?
>> That they generate contradictions, and thus make the system worthless
>> due to the power of the principle of explosion, since there can be no
>> actual information or knowledge in such a system.
>
> But what you say is not true. Contradictions don't cause explosions in my system. They only cause explosions in your system.
>
> It sure sounds like my system (at the very least) contains the knowledge of how NOT to blow up when it encounters a contradiction.

When all analytical inference is applied to finite strings deriving
finite strings or Boolean values then

macro substitution operator :=
(A ∧ ¬A) := ε // empty string symbol
premises {A, ¬A, B} becomes {B}

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
>>> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
>> Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
>>
>> You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full
>> of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to
>> separate them.
>>
>> You don't know the (binary) classification rule for
>> recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
>>
>>
>
>
> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of the
> nature of Truth.
>
> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and False
> (or not True).

True/False/Not a truth bearer/Currently Unknown

https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
*Key element of the Tarski Undefinability proof*

(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True.
~Provable(x) ↔ True(x).
x is true if and only if x is unprovable
∃x (~Provable(x) ↔ True(x)) is simply false

The next one is a little more accurate because Tarski does not bother to
carefully keep track of whether an expression is encoded in his theory
or his meta-theory. F is the formal system (AKA theory) that G is
referring to.

G ↔ (F ⊬ G)
G is true if and only if G is unprovable in F
∃G ∈ F (G ↔ (F ⊬ G)) is simply false

Within the foundation of analytical truth an expression of language is
only true if it is either stipulated to be true or derived by applying
truth preserving operations to expressions of language having the
semantic property of Boolean true.

Stipulated to be true is Haskell Curry elementary theorems of formal
systems or verified facts of natural language.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/16/2022 7:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 1:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 10:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/15/2022 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/15/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/14/2022 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/14/22 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/13/2022 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Unless an expression of language is a semantic tautology is it
>>>>>>>>> not an
>>>>>>>>>> analytic expression of language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, analytic expressions don't need to be a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups can
>>>>>>>>> be a true analytical expression. its Truth is dependent on the
>>>>>>>>> implied meaning of some of the terms, so it is NOT a Tautology,
>>>>>>>>> which must be true in ALL models of the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
>>>>>>>> Yes maybe there is a possible world where the feline animal of a
>>>>>>>> cat is also an office building. This makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>>>>> When this cat sits on your lap and purrs you are crushed by its
>>>>>>>> thousands of tons of weight.
>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you show you lack of understanding. You don't seem to
>>>>>>> understand the difference between a universal statement and a
>>>>>>> statment of existance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This shows your ignorance. You logic if FULL of these sorts of
>>>>>>> Fallacies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the context is Feline vs Canine, there are in different groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the context is Animal vs Vegetable, there are NOT in different
>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the model we are working in matters, it is not a Tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That a cat is an animal is a Haskell Curry elementary theorem of
>>>>>> English, thus making it true by definition, thus a tautology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you still don't understand the statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Statement: "Cats and Dogs are in distinct animal groups" is a
>>>>> statement that can be a true analytical expression but can't be a
>>>>> Tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a
>>>> formula
>>>> or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
>>>
>>> Right, and that statement is NOT true in every possible
>>> interpetation, but IS a possibly True Analytical Expression,
>>> depending on the interpreation put into the words.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> IF the Animal Groups in question are Feline vs Canine, it is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Animal Groups in question are Mammilian, it is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, it is NOT a Tautology, but could be true.
>>>>
>>>> A cat is always an animal and never an office building. That mammals
>>>> are
>>>> also animals still does not turn a cat into an office building.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you still don't understand what I am saying.
>>>
>>> I guess you are just proving you are stupid.
>>>
>>
>> animal
>>    |
>> mammal
>>    | |
>>    | canine
>>    | |
>>    | dog
>>    |
>> feline
>>    |
>>   cat
>>
>>> A cat is a feline
>>> A cat is a mammal
>>>
>>> A dog is a canine
>>> A dog is a mammal
>>>
>>> a feline is not a canine, so different animal groups
>>>
>>> a mammal is the same group as a mammal, so not differerent animal
>>> groups.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Whch means that the statement "Cats and Dogs are in different animal
> groups" NOT a Tautology, but possibly an True Analytical Expression

In mathematical logic, a tautology (from Greek: ταυτολογία) is a formula
or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

If anyone "interprets" that cats are dogs they are necessarily
incorrect. Cats are not dogs is true in every interpretation.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 15:06:27 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/16/22 12:28 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 December 2022 at 06:40:46 UTC+2, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Nope, you are showing you don't understand the difference between Truth
> >> and Knowledge, and thus unqualified to talk about them.
> > Well, are you "qualified" to talk about them?
> >
> > You keep demonstrating (over and over) that if I gave you a bin full of Truth and non-Truth all mixed up together you don't know how to separate them.
> >
> > You don't know the (binary) classification rule for recognizing/separating/sorting Truth from non-Truth.
> >
> >
> But just asking someone to do that shows a lack of understanding of the
> nature of Truth.
>
> Not all Truth is Known, or even Knowable, therefore no one has the
> ability to completely sort every statement into the bins True and False
> (or not True).
This is so peculiar. If not all Truth is known or Knowable why are you equating "not True" with False?