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.

--
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 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 ...

You just don't seem to know what you are saying.

TRUE requires a connection, finite or infinite.

PROVABLE / KNOWABLE requires a finite connectiopn.

Your brain is soo broken you have lost the ability to keep these two
seperate.

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.

--
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 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 1/6/2023 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 1/6/23 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 1/6/2023 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 1/6/23 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 6:48 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 7:37 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 7:21 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 8:43 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.