On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
>>>>>>>>>> the same."
>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to this
>>>>>>>>> rule.
>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it
>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>> correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or
>>>>>>> equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or
>>>>>>> formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship
>>>>>>> between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>
>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
>>>
>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there is no
>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
>>>
>>
>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>
>
> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>
>

Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.

You are showing your IQ to be extreamly low.

True (in whatever) means that there exist a chain of Truth from the
fundamenal Truths of the system to the statement. This can be an
infinite or Finite chain.

PERIOD,

How is a True, established by a chain of reasoning in a system different
than "True in the system"?

I think you brain has gone inconsistant.

On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>> any.
>>>
>>
>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>>
> That is the way that inference works.
> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
> language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
>

Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.

Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.

But after finding the path, the actual PROOF that path is correct
derives from the FORWARD traversal of the chain.

I guess you only understand how the simple system work.

On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it
>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>> computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct
>>>>>>>> relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
>>>>
>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
>>>> is no
>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>
>>
>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>
>>
>
> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
>
That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
to its natural language axioms.

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

On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>> any.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>>>
>> That is the way that inference works.
>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
>> language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
>>
>
> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>
> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>

The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].

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

On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it
>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
>>>>> is no
>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
>>
> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> to its natural language axioms.
>

No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.

For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
amoundg many other possible meanings.

This is a FUNDAMENTAL problem of trying to reduce "Logic" to "Natural
Language", Natural Language isn't well enough defined to be used as is.

Also, unless you are constraining you logic to only talk about things
that existed before we defined logic, which "Theory" you are in is
needed to define so of the terms.

Otherwise you logic system can't talk about "Numberss" as Numbers only
came about by Theory, so are not terms of Natural Language.

I guess that is your problem, you are restricting you logic to only
things that can be defined by the Natural world without reference to logic.

On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>> semantic
>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>>> any.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>>>>
>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
>>> language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>
>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>
>
> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>

Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
both ways, looking for likely paths with back tracing, and then proving
resutls by the forward chain.

Maybe that is why you have so much trouble understanding people, Your
mind misses so much because it can only go backwards.

I will remind you, you still haven't shown an example where someone has
actually published a proof the way you claim they must work.

I guess you got caught in your lie.

On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
>>>>>> is no
>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
>>>
>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
>> to its natural language axioms.
>>
>
> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
>
> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> amoundg many other possible meanings.
>

A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
this set. I have said this many times.

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

On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be
>>>>>> pure
>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work
>>>> this way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>
>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>
>>
>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>
>
> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
> both ways,

When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
stop when X is encountered.

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

On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be
>>>>>>> pure
>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>>>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>
>>
>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
>> both ways,
>
> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
> stop when X is encountered.
>

And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start with
the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by step you
add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you add the
desired X.

If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
knowledge. Then you need to go back up, and mark those elements, and
ONLY those element that have been proven (and not any side paths that
didn't pan out) to the original statement to prove.

You also need to do that forward path to show that you actually DID find
truth basis for ALL the needed paths of that back track.

You are confusing the method of locating the path, from the method
actually used to PROVE the path.

On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
>>>>>>>> infinite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise
>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
>>>>> notice
>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
>>>>
>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
>>> to its natural language axioms.
>>>
>>
>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
>>
>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all
>> of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
>>
>
> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> this set. I have said this many times.
>
>

Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language, and STILL can't talk
about any concept that is created by the Theory, like Numbers.

On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could
>>>>>>>> be pure
>>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
>>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
>>>>> result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
>>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
>>> both ways,
>>
>> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
>> stop when X is encountered.
>>
>
> And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start with
> the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by step you
> add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you add the
> desired X.
>
> If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
> an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
> knowledge.

Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
[facts] then X is not true.

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

On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and
>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
>>>>>>>>> infinite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise
>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms
>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
>>>>>> notice
>>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
>>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
>>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
>>>>>
>>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
>>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained
>>>> inference
>>>> to its natural language axioms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
>>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
>>>
>>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all
>>> of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
>>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
>>>
>>
>> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
>> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
>> this set. I have said this many times.
>>
>>
>
> Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,

Sure we are each GUID represents a single natural language sense meaning
that can be translated into any human language expressive enough to
encode this meaning as a word or phrase.

> and STILL can't talk
> about any concept that is created by the Theory, like Numbers.

The knowledge tree has ALL general knowledge about everything.

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

On 1/6/23 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could
>>>>>>>>> be pure
>>>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if
>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are
>>>>>>>> so lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if
>>>>>> the result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same
>>>>> way
>>>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds
>>>> work both ways,
>>>
>>> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
>>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
>>> stop when X is encountered.
>>>
>>
>> And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start
>> with the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by
>> step you add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you
>> add the desired X.
>>
>> If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
>> an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached knowledge.
>
> Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
> type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
> inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
> [facts] then X is not true.
>

Nope, since you haven't actually provided a published proof that works
this way, I am calling you LIAR.

Yes, back tracking is a valid SEARCH methodology to help find what
forward path you want to take.

The problem with back tracking is while only a small percentage of the
knowledge would be part of the forward path, unless you are working in a
strictly finite logic system (which seems to be the only ones you
understand) there are still a lot of possible back connections, most of
which are dead ends.

For instance, if we look at the sentence we started with, "{cat} <are>
{living creatures}", in our actual knowledge base of {cat} and of
{living animals} there are LOTS of optios.

As an example, if we actually try to apply actual backtracking to the
sentence of {cat} <are> {living createures}, in our database of
knowledge, presumably this statement isn't just enterer, or is there any
statments of the form if A then {cat} <are> {living creatures}, so we
need to find something with the right form, and the best we likely have
is the subclassing rule,

A <are> B & B <are> C -> A <are> C

So we can match this rule to {cat} <are> {Living Creatures}

now we need to search through our ENTIRE knowledge base for ALL our
statements about {cat} and ALL our statements about {living creature}
and see if there is a common connection.

In YOUR simple case it was, but if our base knowledge set just had {cat}
<are> {Fallide} and then {Falide} <are> {order Carnivora}, then {order
Carnivora} <are> {Mammals}, then {Mammals} <are> {Vertebrate}, then
{Vertebrate} <are> {Animales}, then {Animals} <are> {Living Beings}.

And if we also have a lot of other knowledge about these various
classifications, we still have a very large search space to scan
through. You might even start trying to start filling in your search
from the statement that {Plants} <are> {Living things} and we know that
such a path won't get us to {cats}.

Much better to actually LOOK at the goal senctence, see the type of
classification we are looking at, then starting at cats, use just THAT
type of classification, to build the full chain.

You have again made yourself dumb by only looking at simple cases and
assuming you can extrapolte to the more complicated.

Back Tracking is most used as a PART of the solution process in SIMPLE
classifcation type systems.

Note, it often has problems when you hit statements that say "Not x",
unless you have significant knowledge list about not X,

On 1/6/23 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this rule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference
>>>>>>>>>>> from the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
>>>>>>>>>> infinite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise
>>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms
>>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
>>>>>>> notice
>>>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they
>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE
>>>>>> the same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
>>>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained
>>>>> inference
>>>>> to its natural language axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is
>>>> and what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or
>>>> all of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar
>>>> Tractor", amoundg many other possible meanings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
>>> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
>>> this set. I have said this many times.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,
>
> Sure we are each GUID represents a single natural language sense meaning
> that can be translated into any human language expressive enough to
> encode this meaning as a word or phrase.

Nope, that ISN'T Natural Language anymore.

>
>> and STILL can't talk about any concept that is created by the Theory,
>> like Numbers.
>
> The knowledge tree has ALL general knowledge about everything.
>

Nope, you can't let your Natural Language adopt terms of a Technical
Discipline unless you define WHICH version of that Technical Discipline
you are working in (when multiple version exist).

Sincd that distinction is EXACTLY what the "Theory" term is used for in
this context, Either you Natural Language is as define with a specific
Theory, or it excludes the Material of that Theory.

If you "tagged" version trie to distinguish the various Theories, then
the only Truth perserving operations you can use, would be the one
defined in that Theory, as nothing outside that Theory would be using
the word the same way.

On 1/6/2023 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could
>>>>>>>>>> be pure
>>>>>>>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
>>>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if
>>>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are
>>>>>>>>> so lost.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the way that inference works.
>>>>>>>> To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
>>>>>>>> natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
>>>>>>>> work this way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if
>>>>>>> the result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
>>>>>> expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the
>>>>>> same way
>>>>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds
>>>>> work both ways,
>>>>
>>>> When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
>>>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
>>>> stop when X is encountered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start
>>> with the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by
>>> step you add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you
>>> add the desired X.
>>>
>>> If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are
>>> on an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
>>> knowledge.
>>
>> Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
>> type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
>> inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
>> [facts] then X is not true.
>>
>
>
> Nope, since you haven't actually provided a published proof that works
> this way, I am calling you LIAR.
>
> Yes, back tracking is a valid SEARCH methodology to help find what
> forward path you want to take.
>
> The problem with back tracking is while only a small percentage of the
> knowledge would be part of the forward path, unless you are working in a
> strictly finite logic system (which seems to be the only ones you
> understand)

That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.

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

On 1/6/2023 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this rule.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hit; Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation) is the direct relationship between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer programs and mathematical proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained
>>>>>>>>>>>> inference.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms
>>>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
>>>>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
>>>>>>>> notice
>>>>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they
>>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE
>>>>>>> the same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working
>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
>>>>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained
>>>>>> inference
>>>>>> to its natural language axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is
>>>>> and what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or
>>>>> all of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar
>>>>> Tractor", amoundg many other possible meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
>>>> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
>>>> this set. I have said this many times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,
>>
>> Sure we are each GUID represents a single natural language sense meaning
>> that can be translated into any human language expressive enough to
>> encode this meaning as a word or phrase.
>
> Nope, that ISN'T Natural Language anymore.
>
Yes it is and it is exactly that way the largest AI project in the world
represents natural language semantics. Doug Lenat an I spoke about his
CYC project.

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

On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>

Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.

Why do you say that we actually DERIVE Truth starting with the unknown?
To generate Truth you MUST start the proof with the KNOWN.
Answer: Because you don't understand how proofs work.

YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim that all the word is
doing logic wrong, but you can't even get the basic right.

YOU FAIL.

On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>
>
> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>

Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.

Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.

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

On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>
>>
>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>
>
> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.

Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
the statement has a proven Truth Value.

>
> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>

So, what ACTUAL epistimologal antinomy is there in the statement:

G: there does not exist a number g which satisfies <specific Primative
Recursive Relaitonship>

Which you are labling as an Epistimological Antinomy.

Note, a "Simplified Version" of a statement with a different truth value
than the original is NOT a faithful simplificaiton of the statement.

If you read the paper you posted, that IS the essence of Godel Sentence
is "The Theory".

THe <spcific Primative Recursive Relationship> is fully computable in
the Theory for any number N, and will give the exact same answer in the
Meta-Theory.

In the Meta-Theory, we have the ability to compress the infinite number
of tests needed to show that no number satisfies it to a finite proof,
but that just proves that no such number exists.

And then, because of the interpreation that the Mata-Theory gives to the
<specific Primative Recursive Relationship> we can show that this also
means that there can not be a proof in F of this fact, as a proof in F
of that fact would actually generate a number, by fhe rules of the
Meta-Theory, that would satisfy that relationship in BOTH the Theory and
Meta-Theory, and since he already proved that no such number could
exist, no such proof can exist.

The is NO Epistimelogical Antinomy present.

Yes, he STARTED with a statement that was one, but TRANSFORMED it into a
DIFFERENT statement that isn't one (by making it no longer talk about
its Truth, but it Provability) and then in the META-THEORY used it to
construct that <specific Primative Recursvie Relationship> which can be
put into F unchanged, since the relationship itself uses nothing of the
Meta-Theory, so BY DEFINITION of the construction of the Meta-Theory,
moves unchanged.

Note, by these rules, it is also impossible for a statement if F that IS
a truth bearer, to become an Epistemological Antinomy in the Meta Theory
if it doesn't somehow mention something in the Meta Theory, which this
relationship doesn't, as it is just math.

On 1/6/23 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>> Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,
>>>
>>> Sure we are each GUID represents a single natural language sense meaning
>>> that can be translated into any human language expressive enough to
>>> encode this meaning as a word or phrase.
>>
>> Nope, that ISN'T Natural Language anymore.
>>
> Yes it is and it is exactly that way the largest AI project in the world
> represents natural language semantics. Doug Lenat an I spoke about his
> CYC project.
>

Nope, that AI take IN "Natural Language" which is untagged, and then
uses it AI to figure out which tagging is the most likely true.

It may have some Human Currated editing to fix some things, at which
point it isn't actually use a base Natural Language database.

Also, becaue the tagging is based on the AI "Guess", the tagging is not
valid for a Formal Proof. The human corrected tags might be (except the
input still isn't tagged, so you still don't know FOR CERTAIN that it is
using the right tagging.

For the AI purposes, the tagging may be "Good Enough", but does NOT make
it a formal proof.

On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>
>>
>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>
>
> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>
> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>

Challange:

You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.

DO SO.

Rememver to QUOTE the exact rules and Definition you are using.

Remember, they must be generally accepted in the field of Logic.

Thus, you CAN'T use "Unprovable means not True", or "True Means
Probable" as a Rule, because that is your claimed conclusion.

On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>> cannot is
>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>>
>>
>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>
> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
> the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>
The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
have a truth value.

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

On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>> cannot is
>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>> point
>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>> fools.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>> what that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>
>> Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
>> the statement has a proven Truth Value.
>>
> The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
> have a truth value.
>

So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that G
is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens to be
FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction) prove that
G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.

Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka an
Epistimological Antinomy means.

A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
value is resolved.

On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>> cannot is
>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
>>> antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
>>>
>>
>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>
>> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>>
>
> Challange:
>
> You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
>
> DO SO.
>

You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
natural language axiom truth makers.

I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
of my primary research.

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

On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
>>>>> cannot is
>>>>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
>>>>> point
>>>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
>>>>> fools.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
>>>> epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
>>>> what that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
>>>
>>> Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
>>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
>>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
>>>
>>
>> Challange:
>>
>> You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
>>
>> DO SO.
>>
>
> You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
> "This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
> natural language axiom truth makers.

Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.

The Sentence is question is:

G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific Primative
Recursive Relationship>

You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what it
actually is) of

"This statement can not be Proven"

So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.

>
> I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
> epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
> of my primary research.
>

So, you can;t do it.

Good to know.

When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your feathers.

BLUFF CALLED.