On 9/23/22 8:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-09-23 11:12:37 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>
>> On 9/23/22 1:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7,
>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that
>>>> break
>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>>
>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>>> done carefully enough.
>>
>> Logic requires a formalism that Natural Language doesn't naturally
>> obey. Yes, you can use Natural Language in logic, but only by
>> restricting it with formalisms, at which point it isn't "Natural
>> Language" anymore.
>>
>> The problem comes to the fact that in Natural Language, words no
>> longer have precise meanings, which are needed to do the logic.
>>
>> You can't use statements like "All Birds are Animals" as a categorical
>> statement, because the words "Birds" and "Animals", in Natural
>> Langugee include meanings that make this statement false (or perhaps
>> true in a very different way).
>
> Logic in Natural Language:
>
> Peter is an ass.
> An ass has long ears.
> Therefore, Peter has long ears.
>
> Mikko
>

Exactly.

On 9/23/22 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 7:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-09-23 11:12:37 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>
>>> On 9/23/22 1:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7,
>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
>>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that
>>>>> break
>>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>>>
>>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
>>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>>>> done carefully enough.
>>>
>>> Logic requires a formalism that Natural Language doesn't naturally
>>> obey. Yes, you can use Natural Language in logic, but only by
>>> restricting it with formalisms, at which point it isn't "Natural
>>> Language" anymore.
>>>
>>> The problem comes to the fact that in Natural Language, words no
>>> longer have precise meanings, which are needed to do the logic.
>>>
>>> You can't use statements like "All Birds are Animals" as a
>>> categorical statement, because the words "Birds" and "Animals", in
>>> Natural Langugee include meanings that make this statement false (or
>>> perhaps true in a very different way).
>>
>> Logic in Natural Language:
>>
>> Peter is an ass.
>> An ass has long ears.
>> Therefore, Peter has long ears.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> The Cyc formalization of natural language uses globally unique
> identifiers GUIDs for each sense meaning of each word, thus the fallacy
> of equivocation error is not possible in the Cyc system.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>

And thus ISN'T using "Natural Language", by definition.

If your units aren't the "words" of natural language, but some
alternative, you aren't using Natural Language.

On 9/23/22 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7,
>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>
>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>> done carefully enough.
>
> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>
>

Except that by DEFINITION the meta-lanagage needs to take in the
ambiquity of the Natural language or it isn't it, and thus it fails to
be what you claim.

This seems to be a classic problem of yours, you don't understand what
the words actually mean.

FAIL

On 9/23/22 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/22/2022 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/22/22 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2022 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/22/22 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2022 5:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/22 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/21/22 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/22 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the copy of Linz H that is embedded within Linz Ĥ is a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never reach its final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qy or
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. The CORRECT (and thus COMPLETE) simulation of the input
>>>>>>>>>> WILL reach the final state if H <H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet another attempt to get away with the strawman deception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question is: Can the correctly simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ reaches its
>>>>>>>>> own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ⟩.qy or ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that just shows that you don't understand the definiton of a
>>>>>>>> Halt Decider:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an axiom that the correctly simulated input to a halt
>>>>>>> decider derives the actual behavior specified by this input
>>>>>>> otherwise the notion of a UTM is baselessly rejected out-of-hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correctly AND COMPLETELY simulate input to a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we can see that the correctly and completely simulated input
>>>>> to embedded_H never reaches its final state we know that every
>>>>> other simulation also never reaches its final state, thus this
>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who says it doesn't?
>>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to H would reach its own
>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
>>
>> Almost, the COMPLETELY (and correctly) simulated input to H would
>> reach its own final state.
>
> If it is not simulated by H then it is not input to H.

Why do you say That?

The "Input" to H is EXACTLY the finite string.

The behavior of the string being defined as the UTN Simulation is a
precisely defined property.

Note, by YOUR definition, it is IMPOSSIBLE to even define a Halt Decider
by the required definition, so they are simple proven to not exist.

FAIL.

>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by H reaches its own final state of
> ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by H would never reach its own final
> state of ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
>
>

Which isn't the definitions from your source, so you are just admitting
that you aren't working on the Halting Problem.

This means you are aditting that you have wasted the last 18 years of
your life.

YOU HAVE FAILED.

There is NO requirement that the simulation be by the decider.

Adding that mean you are just talkig about your POOP, not halting.

On 9/23/22 10:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/22/2022 11:58 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 5:56:30 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2022 7:22 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:24:25 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2022 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Why do you use so many words?
>>>>>>
>>>>> To short-circuit the dozens of rebuttals that would otherwise occur.
>>>>>
>>>> I think they are the cause of rebuttals. I suspect that were you to
>>>> write laconically you would get lots fewer rebuttals.
>>> I think that most rebuttals are primarily based on the fact that most of
>>> my reviewers only want to argue and don't give a rat's ass about the
>>> truth.
>>>
>>> If I can back them into a corner and show that their rebuttal also
>>> rejects the notion of a UTM, then then may acknowledge the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Incidentally this is not an axiom. It's part of the definition of
>>>>>> a halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hence axiom.
>>>>>
>>>> Not in ordinary speech, what do you imagine "axiom" to mean?
>>> Ultimately an axiom is any expression of formal or natural language that
>>> is stipulated to have a Boolean value of true.
>>>
>>> Unifying the notion of truth across natural and formal language requires
>>> using the same terminology with the same meanings across formal and
>>> natural language.
>>
>> OK. But using a word eccentrically will gain you no friends and
>> make your writing harder to understand.
>
> My purpose is to mathematically formalize the notion of Truth, Tarski
> "proved" this is impossible on the basis that he could not prove that
> the liar paradox is true.
>
> When we understand that for the entire body of analytical truth all of
> correct reasoning only has two sources of truth:
>
> (1) Expressions of natural or formal language that are defined to be
> true. I called these axioms.
>
> (2) Expressions that are derived by applying truth preserving operations
> to (1) or (2).
>
> Then all of undecidable propositions are understood to simply not be
> truth bearers.
>

Except it is clear YOU don't understand what is Truth, since you think
that is correct for H to call P(P) non-halting when it does halt.

You clearly don't understand how logic works, as you seem to think it is
ok to use fallacious logtic to try to prove points.

In other words, you have shown yourself unqualified to make this statement.

FAIL.

On 9/23/2022 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/23/22 10:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/22/2022 11:58 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 5:56:30 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2022 7:22 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:24:25 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2022 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Why do you use so many words?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To short-circuit the dozens of rebuttals that would otherwise occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think they are the cause of rebuttals. I suspect that were you to
>>>>> write laconically you would get lots fewer rebuttals.
>>>> I think that most rebuttals are primarily based on the fact that
>>>> most of
>>>> my reviewers only want to argue and don't give a rat's ass about the
>>>> truth.
>>>>
>>>> If I can back them into a corner and show that their rebuttal also
>>>> rejects the notion of a UTM, then then may acknowledge the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incidentally this is not an axiom. It's part of the definition of
>>>>>>> a halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence axiom.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not in ordinary speech, what do you imagine "axiom" to mean?
>>>> Ultimately an axiom is any expression of formal or natural language
>>>> that
>>>> is stipulated to have a Boolean value of true.
>>>>
>>>> Unifying the notion of truth across natural and formal language
>>>> requires
>>>> using the same terminology with the same meanings across formal and
>>>> natural language.
>>>
>>> OK. But using a word eccentrically will gain you no friends and
>>> make your writing harder to understand.
>>
>> My purpose is to mathematically formalize the notion of Truth, Tarski
>> "proved" this is impossible on the basis that he could not prove that
>> the liar paradox is true.
>>
>> When we understand that for the entire body of analytical truth all of
>> correct reasoning only has two sources of truth:
>>
>> (1) Expressions of natural or formal language that are defined to be
>> true. I called these axioms.
>>
>> (2) Expressions that are derived by applying truth preserving
>> operations to (1) or (2).
>>
>> Then all of undecidable propositions are understood to simply not be
>> truth bearers.
>>
>
> Except it is clear YOU don't understand what is Truth, since you think
> that is correct for H to call P(P) non-halting when it does halt.

void Px(ptr x)
{ int Halt_Status = Hx(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

None of the actual Px inputs to any Hx of the infinite set of HX/Px
pairs ever reaches its final state when 1 to ∞ steps of Px are simulated
by Hx or Hx directly executes Px.

That you continue to refer to the behavior of non-inputs when you know
that halt deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs to an
accept or reject state based on the actual behavior specified by these
inputs *is what a despicable lying bastard would do*

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 9/23/22 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/23/22 10:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2022 11:58 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 5:56:30 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2022 7:22 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 3:24:25 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/22/2022 4:13 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why do you use so many words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To short-circuit the dozens of rebuttals that would otherwise occur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they are the cause of rebuttals. I suspect that were you to
>>>>>> write laconically you would get lots fewer rebuttals.
>>>>> I think that most rebuttals are primarily based on the fact that
>>>>> most of
>>>>> my reviewers only want to argue and don't give a rat's ass about
>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can back them into a corner and show that their rebuttal also
>>>>> rejects the notion of a UTM, then then may acknowledge the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incidentally this is not an axiom. It's part of the definition
>>>>>>>> of a halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence axiom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in ordinary speech, what do you imagine "axiom" to mean?
>>>>> Ultimately an axiom is any expression of formal or natural language
>>>>> that
>>>>> is stipulated to have a Boolean value of true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unifying the notion of truth across natural and formal language
>>>>> requires
>>>>> using the same terminology with the same meanings across formal and
>>>>> natural language.
>>>>
>>>> OK. But using a word eccentrically will gain you no friends and
>>>> make your writing harder to understand.
>>>
>>> My purpose is to mathematically formalize the notion of Truth, Tarski
>>> "proved" this is impossible on the basis that he could not prove that
>>> the liar paradox is true.
>>>
>>> When we understand that for the entire body of analytical truth all
>>> of correct reasoning only has two sources of truth:
>>>
>>> (1) Expressions of natural or formal language that are defined to be
>>> true. I called these axioms.
>>>
>>> (2) Expressions that are derived by applying truth preserving
>>> operations to (1) or (2).
>>>
>>> Then all of undecidable propositions are understood to simply not be
>>> truth bearers.
>>>
>>
>> Except it is clear YOU don't understand what is Truth, since you think
>> that is correct for H to call P(P) non-halting when it does halt.
>
> void Px(ptr x)
> {
>   int Halt_Status = Hx(x, x);
>   if (Halt_Status)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return;
> }
>
> None of the actual Px inputs to any Hx of the infinite set of HX/Px
> pairs ever reaches its final state when 1 to ∞ steps of Px are simulated
> by Hx or Hx directly executes Px.
>
> That you continue to refer to the behavior of non-inputs when you know
> that halt deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs to an
> accept or reject state based on the actual behavior specified by these
> inputs *is what a despicable lying bastard would do*
>

No matter what you say, it isn't about the Halting Problem.

Your H, when given the Px above based on it, answers 0, this you have
stipulate.

The DEFINITION of a Halting Decider is that H(P,d) needs to return 1 if
P(d) Halts.

Since this Px(Px) Halts, you H is wrong.

DEFINITION.

All your distracting words are just proving you don;t understand what
you are talking about and are just being deceptive.

It doesn't matter that no Hx can correctly simulate its input the final
state, as the halting problem is only concerned with the ONE decider
that you want to claim to be correct, and the proof proves ONE input
that it will get wrong. And Your H has exactly that problem/

You are just PROVING that you are an ignorant pathologically lying idiot
to think that your gobbledy-gook has any actual bearing to this problem.

Note, Px(Px) IS the computaiton represented by the input th Hx(Px,Px),
and your denial is just further proof of your stupidity.

YOUR REPUTATION IS DEAD, as it sounds like you will soon be too.

It is buried under the pile of lies you have said over the last 18 years.

Demented bigot crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> ...
> void Px(ptr x)
> {
>   int Halt_Status = Hx(x, x);
>   if (Halt_Status)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return;
> }
>
> None of the actual Px inputs to any Hx of the infinite set of HX/Px
> pairs ever reaches its final state when 1 to ∞ steps of Px are simulated
> by Hx or Hx directly executes Px.
>
> That you continue to refer to the behavior of non-inputs

Richard don't do that, you do.

> when you know
> that halt deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs to an
> accept or reject state based on the actual behavior specified by these
> inputs *is what a despicable lying bastard would do*
>

You are the despicable lying bastard Richard.

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
> >> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
> >> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
> >>
> > Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
> > certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
> > flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
> > done carefully enough.
> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF

Montague's work has been rejected by linguists. Linguists of all the
different schools. Your references to it are the only references I have
seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.

On 9/23/2022 10:09 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>>
>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>>> done carefully enough.
>> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
>> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
>> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>
> Montague's work has been rejected by linguists.

In the same way and for the same reason that math is rejected by those
with math phobia.

> Linguists of all the
> different schools. Your references to it are the only references I have
> seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
> Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.

MTT is a very tiny simple little language that can (in theory) encode
any natural language expression. The largest AI project in the world
uses something similar, CYCL.

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

On 9/23/2022 6:28 PM, Python wrote:
> Demented bigot crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>> On 9/23/2022 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> ...
>> void Px(ptr x)
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = Hx(x, x);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> None of the actual Px inputs to any Hx of the infinite set of HX/Px
>> pairs ever reaches its final state when 1 to ∞ steps of Px are
>> simulated by Hx or Hx directly executes Px.
>>
>> That you continue to refer to the behavior of non-inputs
>
> Richard don't do that, you do.
>
>> when you know that halt deciders only compute the mapping from their
>> inputs to an accept or reject state based on the actual behavior
>> specified by these inputs *is what a despicable lying bastard would do*
>>
>
> You are the despicable lying bastard Richard.
You are replying to Pete the puzzled, not Richard the redundant. Who did
you actually think these remarks were meant for?
--
Jeff Barnett

On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 9/23/2022 10:09 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
> >>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
> >>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
> >>>>
> >>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
> >>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
> >>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
> >>> done carefully enough.
> >> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
> >> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
> >> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> >
> > Montague's work has been rejected by linguists.

> In the same way and for the same reason that math is rejected by those
> with math phobia.
>
I thing your metaphor is confused. You seem to be accusing linguists of
math phobia.
>
> > Linguists of all the
> > different schools. Your references to it are the only references I have
> > seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
> > Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.

> MTT is a very tiny simple little language that can (in theory) encode
> any natural language expression. The largest AI project in the world
> uses something similar, CYCL.
>
You have never made any attempt to address how MTT might encode
any natural language expression of any complexity. Maybe you could
show us how to encode Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Or perhaps
"Flying planes can be dangerous."

On 9/24/2022 3:00 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/23/2022 10:09 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
>>>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
>>>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>>>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
>>>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>>>>> done carefully enough.
>>>> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
>>>> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
>>>> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>>
>>> Montague's work has been rejected by linguists.
>
>> In the same way and for the same reason that math is rejected by those
>> with math phobia.
>>
> I thing your metaphor is confused. You seem to be accusing linguists of
> math phobia.

Yes I am that is their whole basis for rejecting Montague.
The fact that Doug Lenat has a whole commercial system that is
essentially based on Montague proves that Montague is correct.

>>
>>> Linguists of all the
>>> different schools. Your references to it are the only references I have
>>> seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
>>> Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.
>
>> MTT is a very tiny simple little language that can (in theory) encode
>> any natural language expression. The largest AI project in the world
>> uses something similar, CYCL.
>>
> You have never made any attempt to address how MTT might encode
> any natural language expression of any complexity.

Recursively quite deep, quadrillions of connections of the encoding of
tiny ideas compose every larger idea.

> Maybe you could
> show us how to encode Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Or perhaps
> "Flying planes can be dangerous."

Carnap's meaning postulates show that the idea that bachelors are not
married is very easy to encode in something just like MTT.

Add far less than a centillion more meaning postulates and we can have
the sum total of all human knowledge fully encoded.

*Here is where I got that idea from*
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic
expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of
individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such
relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that
sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation
R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types
fitting together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944

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

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 1:12:45 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 9/24/2022 3:00 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2022 10:09 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
> >>>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
> >>>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
> >>>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
> >>>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
> >>>>> done carefully enough.
> >>>> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
> >>>> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
> >>>> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> >>>
> >>> Montague's work has been rejected by linguists.
> >
> >> In the same way and for the same reason that math is rejected by those
> >> with math phobia.
> >>
> > I thing your metaphor is confused. You seem to be accusing linguists of
> > math phobia.
> Yes I am that is their whole basis for rejecting Montague.
> The fact that Doug Lenat has a whole commercial system that is
> essentially based on Montague proves that Montague is correct.
> >>
> >>> Linguists of all the
> >>> different schools. Your references to it are the only references I have
> >>> seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
> >>> Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.
> >
> >> MTT is a very tiny simple little language that can (in theory) encode
> >> any natural language expression. The largest AI project in the world
> >> uses something similar, CYCL.
> >>
> > You have never made any attempt to address how MTT might encode
> > any natural language expression of any complexity.
> Recursively quite deep, quadrillions of connections of the encoding of
> tiny ideas compose every larger idea.
> > Maybe you could
> > show us how to encode Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Or perhaps
> > "Flying planes can be dangerous."
> Carnap's meaning postulates show that the idea that bachelors are not
> married is very easy to encode in something just like MTT.
>
In natural language "Bachelors are not married" has at least three
different readings besides being less than true even in the most
obvious reading. In many people's speech "bachelor" means person
living alone not person without legal spouse.
>
> Add far less than a centillion more meaning postulates and we can have
> the sum total of all human knowledge fully encoded.
>
I lose no sleep over this because I don't think the sum total can be encoded.
>
> *Here is where I got that idea from*
> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic
> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of
> individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such
> relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that
> sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation
> R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types
> fitting together.
>
As nearly as I can tell a theory of simple types can be reduced to a
theory without types by simply changing the identifier of every object
by adding a suffix naming its type. But such an approach is not as
elegant as making the type an attribute.

You have used this quote before and I have objected before that it is
either wrong of incomplete. It seems to say that the types themselves
are predefined as
objects
properties of objects
propositions with objects as free variables
properties of such objects
etc.
I do not understand what is meant by "extensions. But the real
problem is what is meant by "etc"?

On 9/24/2022 6:43 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 1:12:45 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/24/2022 3:00 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2022 10:09 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to failure, as
>>>>>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies that break
>>>>>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>>>>>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However it is
>>>>>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>>>>>>> done carefully enough.
>>>>>> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
>>>>>> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
>>>>>> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>>>>
>>>>> Montague's work has been rejected by linguists.
>>>
>>>> In the same way and for the same reason that math is rejected by those
>>>> with math phobia.
>>>>
>>> I thing your metaphor is confused. You seem to be accusing linguists of
>>> math phobia.
>> Yes I am that is their whole basis for rejecting Montague.
>> The fact that Doug Lenat has a whole commercial system that is
>> essentially based on Montague proves that Montague is correct.
>>>>
>>>>> Linguists of all the
>>>>> different schools. Your references to it are the only references I have
>>>>> seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
>>>>> Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.
>>>
>>>> MTT is a very tiny simple little language that can (in theory) encode
>>>> any natural language expression. The largest AI project in the world
>>>> uses something similar, CYCL.
>>>>
>>> You have never made any attempt to address how MTT might encode
>>> any natural language expression of any complexity.
>> Recursively quite deep, quadrillions of connections of the encoding of
>> tiny ideas compose every larger idea.
>>> Maybe you could
>>> show us how to encode Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Or perhaps
>>> "Flying planes can be dangerous."
>> Carnap's meaning postulates show that the idea that bachelors are not
>> married is very easy to encode in something just like MTT.
>>
> In natural language "Bachelors are not married" has at least three
> different readings besides being less than true even in the most
> obvious reading. In many people's speech "bachelor" means person
> living alone not person without legal spouse.

Bullshit on that:
a man who has never married:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bachelor

>>
>> Add far less than a centillion more meaning postulates and we can have
>> the sum total of all human knowledge fully encoded.
>>
> I lose no sleep over this because I don't think the sum total can be encoded.

A person that does not want to learn calculus could also simply say that
they don't "believe in" calculus.

>>
>> *Here is where I got that idea from*
>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic
>> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of
>> individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such
>> relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that
>> sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation
>> R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types
>> fitting together.
>>
> As nearly as I can tell a theory of simple types can be reduced to a
> theory without types by simply changing the identifier of every object
> by adding a suffix naming its type. But such an approach is not as
> elegant as making the type an attribute.

Not at all. It is the elemental foundation of a knowledge ontology.

In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an
ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how
they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that
represent the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

>
> You have used this quote before and I have objected before that it is
> either wrong of incomplete. It seems to say that the types themselves
> are predefined as
> objects
> properties of objects
> propositions with objects as free variables
> properties of such objects
> etc.
> I do not understand what is meant by "extensions. But the real
> problem is what is meant by "etc"?
>

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

On 9/24/22 8:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/24/2022 6:43 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 1:12:45 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2022 3:00 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 8:25:05 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/2022 10:09 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, September 23, 2022 at 7:33:34 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2022 12:03 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 at 6:13:27 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, "Logic" in Natural Language is basically DOOMED to
>>>>>>>>> failure, as
>>>>>>>>> Natural Language is almost always filled with inconsistencies
>>>>>>>>> that break
>>>>>>>>> the logic if you try to use it too formally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Natural Language works in a way that remains mysterious. But we are
>>>>>>>> certain it works very unlike logic, formal or informal . However
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> flexible enough that logic can be expressed in natural language if
>>>>>>>> done carefully enough.
>>>>>>> Simply make a meta-language rich enough to fully express natural
>>>>>>> language semantics. Richard Montague did a very good job with this.
>>>>>>> I created Minimal Type Theory as the basis for doing this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Montague's work has been rejected by linguists.
>>>>
>>>>> In the same way and for the same reason that math is rejected by those
>>>>> with math phobia.
>>>>>
>>>> I thing your metaphor is confused. You seem to be accusing linguists of
>>>> math phobia.
>>> Yes I am that is their whole basis for rejecting Montague.
>>> The fact that Doug Lenat has a whole commercial system that is
>>> essentially based on Montague proves that Montague is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguists of all the
>>>>>> different schools. Your references to it are the only references I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> seen since around 2000. Your Minimal Type Theory doesn't extend
>>>>>> Montague and, so far as I can tell, doesn't make any sense at all.
>>>>
>>>>> MTT is a very tiny simple little language that can (in theory) encode
>>>>> any natural language expression. The largest AI project in the world
>>>>> uses something similar, CYCL.
>>>>>
>>>> You have never made any attempt to address how MTT might encode
>>>> any natural language expression of any complexity.
>>> Recursively quite deep, quadrillions of connections of the encoding of
>>> tiny ideas compose every larger idea.
>>>> Maybe you could
>>>> show us how to encode Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Or perhaps
>>>> "Flying planes can be dangerous."
>>> Carnap's meaning postulates show that the idea that bachelors are not
>>> married is very easy to encode in something just like MTT.
>>>
>> In natural language "Bachelors are not married" has at least three
>> different readings besides being less than true even in the most
>> obvious reading. In many people's speech "bachelor" means person
>> living alone not person without legal spouse.
>
> Bullshit on that:
> a man who has never married:
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bachelor
>
Or:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bachelor

Definition of bachelor (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a young knight who follows the banner of another
2 : a person who has received a degree from a college, university, or
professional school usually after four years of study
bachelor of arts
also : the degree itself
received a bachelor of laws
3a : an unmarried man
He chooses to remain a bachelor.
b : a male animal (such as a fur seal) without a mate during breeding time

bachelor adjective
Definition of bachelor (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : suitable for or occupied by a single person
a bachelor apartment
2 : UNMARRIED
bachelor women
bachelor parents

Not so simple.

(Even read your page farther on)

>>>
>>> Add far less than a centillion more meaning postulates and we can have
>>> the sum total of all human knowledge fully encoded.
>>>
>> I lose no sleep over this because I don't think the sum total can be
>> encoded.
>
> A person that does not want to learn calculus could also simply say that
> they don't "believe in" calculus.

No. You appearenlly don't understand the meaning of the word.

You have shown incredable problems with other words.

>
>>>
>>> *Here is where I got that idea from*
>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>>> objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic
>>> expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of
>>> individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such
>>> relations, etc. (with a similar hierarchy for extensions), and that
>>> sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation
>>> R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types
>>> fitting together.
>>>
>> As nearly as I can tell a theory of simple types can be reduced to a
>> theory without types by simply changing the identifier of every object
>> by adding a suffix naming its type. But such an approach is not as
>> elegant as  making the type an attribute.
>
> Not at all. It is the elemental foundation of a knowledge ontology.
>
> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
> substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an
> ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how
> they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that
> represent the subject.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>
>>
>> You have used this quote before and I have objected before that it is
>> either wrong of incomplete. It seems to say that the types themselves
>> are predefined as
>>       objects
>>       properties of objects
>>       propositions with objects as free variables
>>       properties of such objects
>>       etc.
>> I do not understand what is meant by "extensions. But the real
>> problem is what is meant by "etc"?
>>
>
>
>

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 9/24/2022 6:43 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>
You forgot to read to the end of my post. I wrote ---

> > On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 1:12:45 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
> substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an
> ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how
> they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that
> represent the subject.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> >
You have used this quote before and I have objected before that it is
either wrong of incomplete. It seems to say that the types themselves
are predefined as
objects
properties of objects
propositions with objects as free variables
properties of such objects
etc.
I do not understand what is meant by "extensions. But the real
problem is what is meant by "etc"?

On 9/24/2022 11:03 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/24/2022 6:43 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> You forgot to read to the end of my post. I wrote ---
>
>>> On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 1:12:45 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>> In computer science and information science, an ontology encompasses a
>> representation, formal naming, and definition of the categories,
>> properties, and relations between the concepts, data, and entities that
>> substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an
>> ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how
>> they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that
>> represent the subject.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>>
> You have used this quote before and I have objected before that it is
> either wrong of incomplete. It seems to say that the types themselves
> are predefined as
> objects
> properties of objects
> propositions with objects as free variables
> properties of such objects
> etc.
> I do not understand what is meant by "extensions. But the real
> problem is what is meant by "etc"?

I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:

By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals,
properties of individuals,
relations between individuals,
properties of such relations, etc.
and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the
relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of
types fitting together.

This is a knowledge ontology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

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

On 9/24/2022 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
SORRY IF THIS IS REDUNDANT; I GOT MESSAGE THAT 1ST ATTEMPT TO POST FAILED>
<SNIP>
> I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
> This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:
How can you possibly tell that "it is inessential" when you don't
understand it? There is so much you do not understand (proven by the
total body of your crap posts) that you are in no position to judge most
of the things you pontificate about.
Example: the bullshit in the next paragraph.
> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
> objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
> individuals,
> properties of individuals,
> relations between individuals,
> properties of such relations, etc.
> and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the
> relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of
> types fitting together.
>
> This is a knowledge ontology.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
Most philosophers that I have known and/or read believe that Ontology
has two main goals: 1) try to express what we know (so far) in ways that
we know how to express it and 2) overlap with epistemology in an attempt
to get a handle on what knowledge is. In other words, things like
hierarchical organizations to express relationships are very nice. As
far as they go, that is.
A large contribution to Herb Simon's ideas in this area were part of his
support for his Nobel prize. He notes that structures, both natural and
artificial, are mostly hierarchical but not quite. The reason is that
they quickly die of their own weight and inefficiencies if they wear a
hierarchical straight jacket.
When and if you study more you might graduate from the class of
ineffectual grasshopper to a level where you can consider harder
problems more deeply. Then, perhaps, you will understand. For trivial
insights, you might consider the following problem examples:
1. Words like bachelor that have multiple meanings. The fact that such
words are used to make puns that depend on the listener's ability to
realize what is beneath the surface shows the representation is inadequate.
2. The three leg dog that I met in Lexington, KY. The tracks he left (in
the snow) had us curious for days wondering what sort of creature was
about. Snow was a very very rare occurrence in KY; at the time the state
had close to zero snow plows but by chance I learned that hierarchical
categories didn't quite do it.
3. My pet cat belongs to an order that includes felines, it also belongs
to the set of males. Each class of objects belongs to countless parent
classes. This is not a hierarchy; it is (at best) an acyclic graph. The
usual blind attempt to escape this dilemma is to declare some classes as
properties, what ever in the hell that means, but the choices as to what
constitutes classes and what are properties is quite ad hoc and gives
the lie to the venture.
4. The meaning of terms is quite time dependent. Even of scientific
terms. Example, there is an infection called nocardia with about 80
subtypes. Until recently, there was a debate about whether the germs
were bacteria or something yeast-like, i.e., in the current hierarchy of
life, there was a question of what Kingdom nocardia was in!!!! The
question has been settled in modern times by sequencing its DNA. For the
curious, it's a bacteria. So hierarchies will change over time. This
bullet demonstrates the change in our knowledge. Grasshopper, for some
extra credit find some examples where the classification changes because
the members of the class evolve.
For your homework, do better examples than the stages of a butterfly's
development. Also explain what it means when the official codification
of all eternal knowledge changes day by day and year by year. Is
knowledge eternal to you or is it a flexible structure that pulses and
changes in various ways?
Should I predict what you will do with this message? Your choices (and
my guesses) include 1) ignore, 2) make a lot of snarky comments rather
than address what has been said, 3) edit out all those things you don't
understand, or 4) show some code and (incorrect) stuff in pseudo math
notation and try to appear above the level of grasshopper.
We shall see!
--
Jeff Barnett

On 9/25/2022 1:19 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 9/24/2022 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> SORRY IF THIS IS REDUNDANT; I GOT MESSAGE THAT 1ST ATTEMPT TO POST FAILED>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
>> This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:
>
> How can you possibly tell that "it is inessential" when you don't
> understand it? There is so much you do not understand (proven by the
> total body of your crap posts) that you are in no position to judge most
> of the things you pontificate about.
>
> Example: the bullshit in the next paragraph.
>
That is a verbatim quote of Kurt Gödel:

>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>> objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
>> individuals,
>> properties of individuals,
>> relations between individuals,
>> properties of such relations, etc.
>> and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears
>> the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of
>> types fitting together.
>>
>> This is a knowledge ontology.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>
> Most philosophers that I have known and/or read believe that Ontology
> has two main goals: 1) try to express what we know (so far) in ways that
> we know how to express it and 2) overlap with epistemology in an attempt
> to get a handle on what knowledge is. In other words, things like
> hierarchical organizations to express relationships are very nice. As
> far as they go, that is.
>

800 labor years were invested in the Cyc project's knowledge ontology.

> A large contribution to Herb Simon's ideas in this area were part of his
> support for his Nobel prize. He notes that structures, both natural and
> artificial, are mostly hierarchical but not quite. The reason is that
> they quickly die of their own weight and inefficiencies if they wear a
> hierarchical straight jacket.
>

The natural preexisting order of knowledge is an inheritance hierarchy.

> When and if you study more you might graduate from the class of
> ineffectual grasshopper to a level where you can consider harder
> problems more deeply. Then, perhaps, you will understand. For trivial
> insights, you might consider the following problem examples:
>
> 1. Words like bachelor that have multiple meanings. The fact that such
> words are used to make puns that depend on the listener's ability to
> realize what is beneath the surface shows the representation is inadequate.
>

The Cyc project uses GUIDs for each unique sense meaning.

> 2. The three leg dog that I met in Lexington, KY. The tracks he left (in
> the snow) had us curious for days wondering what sort of creature was
> about. Snow was a very very rare occurrence in KY; at the time the state
> had close to zero snow plows but by chance I learned that hierarchical
> categories didn't quite do it.
>
> 3. My pet cat belongs to an order that includes felines, it also belongs
> to the set of males. Each class of objects belongs to countless parent
> classes. This is not a hierarchy; it is (at best) an acyclic graph. The

Same thing.

> usual blind attempt to escape this dilemma is to declare some classes as
> properties, what ever in the hell that means, but the choices as to what
> constitutes classes and what are properties is quite ad hoc and gives
> the lie to the venture.
>

> 4. The meaning of terms is quite time dependent. Even of scientific
> terms. Example, there is an infection called nocardia with about 80
> subtypes. Until recently, there was a debate about whether the germs
> were bacteria or something yeast-like, i.e., in the current hierarchy of
> life, there was a question of what Kingdom nocardia was in!!!! The
> question has been settled in modern times by sequencing its DNA. For the
> curious, it's a bacteria. So hierarchies will change over time. This
> bullet demonstrates the change in our knowledge. Grasshopper, for some
> extra credit find some examples where the classification changes because
> the members of the class evolve.
>
> For your homework, do better examples than the stages of a butterfly's
> development. Also explain what it means when the official codification
> of all eternal knowledge changes day by day and year by year. Is
> knowledge eternal to you or is it a flexible structure that pulses and
> changes in various ways?
>
> Should I predict what you will do with this message? Your choices (and
> my guesses) include 1) ignore, 2) make a lot of snarky comments rather
> than address what has been said, 3) edit out all those things you don't
> understand, or 4) show some code and (incorrect) stuff in pseudo math
> notation and try to appear above the level of grasshopper.
>
> We shall see!

A knowledge ontology is the basic structure required to make a human
mind using software. Before we can do this effectively we must first get
a much better handle on the notion of truth itself. Tarski "proved" that
it is impossible to formalize the notion of truth on the basis that he
could not prove that the liar paradox is true. He never noticed that the
liar paradox is not a truth bearer.

These same sort of issues arise with Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Wittgenstein summed it up the same way that I did before ever reading
Wittgenstein: "This sentence cannot be proved" is simply not a truth
bearer.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Wittgenstein's refutation of Gödel's incompleteness is on page 6.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 10:14:17 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 9/25/2022 1:19 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> > On 9/24/2022 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> >
> > SORRY IF THIS IS REDUNDANT; I GOT MESSAGE THAT 1ST ATTEMPT TO POST
> > FAILED>
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> >> I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
> >> This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:
> >
> > How can you possibly tell that "it is inessential" when you don't
> > understand it? There is so much you do not understand (proven by
> > the total body of your crap posts) that you are in no position to
> > judge most of the things you pontificate about.
> >
> > Example: the bullshit in the next paragraph.
> >
> That is a verbatim quote of Kurt Gödel:
>
> >> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that
> >> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
> >> individuals,
> >> properties of individuals,
> >> relations between individuals,
> >> properties of such relations, etc.
> >> and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b
> >> bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R,
> >> φ are not of types fitting together.
> >>
> >> This is a knowledge ontology.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
> >
> > Most philosophers that I have known and/or read believe that
> > Ontology has two main goals: 1) try to express what we know (so
> > far) in ways that we know how to express it and 2) overlap with
> > epistemology in an attempt to get a handle on what knowledge is. In
> > other words, things like hierarchical organizations to express
> > relationships are very nice. As far as they go, that is.
> >
>
> 800 labor years were invested in the Cyc project's knowledge ontology.
>
> > A large contribution to Herb Simon's ideas in this area were part
> > of his support for his Nobel prize. He notes that structures, both
> > natural and artificial, are mostly hierarchical but not quite. The
> > reason is that they quickly die of their own weight and
> > inefficiencies if they wear a hierarchical straight jacket.
> >
>
> The natural preexisting order of knowledge is an inheritance
> hierarchy.
>
> > When and if you study more you might graduate from the class of
> > ineffectual grasshopper to a level where you can consider harder
> > problems more deeply. Then, perhaps, you will understand. For
> > trivial insights, you might consider the following problem examples:
> >
> > 1. Words like bachelor that have multiple meanings. The fact that
> > such words are used to make puns that depend on the listener's
> > ability to realize what is beneath the surface shows the
> > representation is inadequate.
>
> The Cyc project uses GUIDs for each unique sense meaning.
>
> > 2. The three leg dog that I met in Lexington, KY. The tracks he
> > left (in the snow) had us curious for days wondering what sort of
> > creature was about. Snow was a very very rare occurrence in KY; at
> > the time the state had close to zero snow plows but by chance I
> > learned that hierarchical categories didn't quite do it.
> >
> > 3. My pet cat belongs to an order that includes felines, it also
> > belongs to the set of males. Each class of objects belongs to
> > countless parent classes. This is not a hierarchy; it is (at best)
> > an acyclic graph. The
>
> Same thing.
>
> > usual blind attempt to escape this dilemma is to declare some
> > classes as properties, what ever in the hell that means, but the
> > choices as to what constitutes classes and what are properties is
> > quite ad hoc and gives the lie to the venture.
> >
>
> > 4. The meaning of terms is quite time dependent. Even of scientific
> > terms. Example, there is an infection called nocardia with about 80
> > subtypes. Until recently, there was a debate about whether the
> > germs were bacteria or something yeast-like, i.e., in the current
> > hierarchy of life, there was a question of what Kingdom nocardia
> > was in!!!! The question has been settled in modern times by
> > sequencing its DNA. For the curious, it's a bacteria. So
> > hierarchies will change over time. This bullet demonstrates the
> > change in our knowledge. Grasshopper, for some extra credit find
> > some examples where the classification changes because the members
> > of the class evolve.
> >
> > For your homework, do better examples than the stages of a
> > butterfly's development. Also explain what it means when the
> > official codification of all eternal knowledge changes day by day
> > and year by year. Is knowledge eternal to you or is it a flexible
> > structure that pulses and changes in various ways?
> >
> > Should I predict what you will do with this message? Your choices
> > (and my guesses) include 1) ignore, 2) make a lot of snarky
> > comments rather than address what has been said, 3) edit out all
> > those things you don't understand, or 4) show some code and
> > (incorrect) stuff in pseudo math notation and try to appear above
> > the level of grasshopper.
> >
> > We shall see!
>
> A knowledge ontology is the basic structure required to make a human
> mind using software. Before we can do this effectively we must first
> get a much better handle on the notion of truth itself. Tarski
> "proved" that it is impossible to formalize the notion of truth on
> the basis that he could not prove that the liar paradox is true. He
> never noticed that the liar paradox is not a truth bearer.
>
> These same sort of issues arise with Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
> Wittgenstein summed it up the same way that I did before ever reading
> Wittgenstein: "This sentence cannot be proved" is simply not a truth
> bearer.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
> Wittgenstein's refutation of Gödel's incompleteness is on page 6.

Oh the irony of a pathological liar commenting on the nature of truth.
Mate, fuck off.

/Flibble

On 9/25/2022 9:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/25/2022 1:19 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 9/24/2022 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> SORRY IF THIS IS REDUNDANT; I GOT MESSAGE THAT 1ST ATTEMPT TO POST
>> FAILED>
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
>>> This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:
>>
>> How can you possibly tell that "it is inessential" when you don't
>> understand it? There is so much you do not understand (proven by the
>> total body of your crap posts) that you are in no position to judge
>> most of the things you pontificate about.
>>
>> Example: the bullshit in the next paragraph.
>>
> That is a verbatim quote of Kurt Gödel:
Why did he call it "simple types" rather than "types"? That was because
he was writing about a baby step, not a complete Platonic epistemology.
>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the
>>> objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
>>> individuals,
>>> properties of individuals,
>>> relations between individuals,
>>> properties of such relations, etc.
>>> and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears
>>> the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of
>>> types fitting together.
>>>
>>> This is a knowledge ontology.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>
>> Most philosophers that I have known and/or read believe that Ontology
>> has two main goals: 1) try to express what we know (so far) in ways
>> that we know how to express it and 2) overlap with epistemology in an
>> attempt to get a handle on what knowledge is. In other words, things
>> like hierarchical organizations to express relationships are very
>> nice. As far as they go, that is.
>>
>
> 800 labor years were invested in the Cyc project's knowledge ontology.
Cyc is doing good work trying to collect the part of what we know, where
a simple-enough-to-use abstraction is enough. It's very impressive even
though it's not an advance in philosophy.
>> A large contribution to Herb Simon's ideas in this area were part of
>> his support for his Nobel prize. He notes that structures, both
>> natural and artificial, are mostly hierarchical but not quite. The
>> reason is that they quickly die of their own weight and inefficiencies
>> if they wear a hierarchical straight jacket.
>>
>
> The natural preexisting order of knowledge is an inheritance hierarchy.
No it isn't. Knowledge is in flux. We have no idea about universal
truths; hell, we don't even know if there is a universe or this is a
logical simulation. Then there are all those multi universe theories
where each component has its own physics. Since we have no way to
determine the truth or falsity of such claims, we have no preexisting
order of things let alone an order of things.
>> When and if you study more you might graduate from the class of
>> ineffectual grasshopper to a level where you can consider harder
>> problems more deeply. Then, perhaps, you will understand. For trivial
>> insights, you might consider the following problem examples:
>>
>> 1. Words like bachelor that have multiple meanings. The fact that such
>> words are used to make puns that depend on the listener's ability to
>> realize what is beneath the surface shows the representation is
>> inadequate.
>>
>
> The Cyc project uses GUIDs for each unique sense meaning.
That is nice but it is not the type of linguistic knowledge that we
carry in our head. Cyc neither understands puns or makes them up. Cyc
does not laugh.
>> 2. The three leg dog that I met in Lexington, KY. The tracks he left
>> (in the snow) had us curious for days wondering what sort of creature
>> was about. Snow was a very very rare occurrence in KY; at the time the
>> state had close to zero snow plows but by chance I learned that
>> hierarchical categories didn't quite do it.
>>
>> 3. My pet cat belongs to an order that includes felines, it also
>> belongs to the set of males. Each class of objects belongs to
>> countless parent classes. This is not a hierarchy; it is (at best) an
>> acyclic graph. The
>
> Same thing.
Wrong again. By the way, Lenat's dissertation id more philosophically
interesting than the Cyc work though the latter represents orders of
magnitude more work.
>> usual blind attempt to escape this dilemma is to declare some classes
>> as properties, what ever in the hell that means, but the choices as to
>> what constitutes classes and what are properties is quite ad hoc and
>> gives the lie to the venture.
>>
>
>> 4. The meaning of terms is quite time dependent. Even of scientific
>> terms. Example, there is an infection called nocardia with about 80
>> subtypes. Until recently, there was a debate about whether the germs
>> were bacteria or something yeast-like, i.e., in the current hierarchy
>> of life, there was a question of what Kingdom nocardia was in!!!! The
>> question has been settled in modern times by sequencing its DNA. For
>> the curious, it's a bacteria. So hierarchies will change over time.
>> This bullet demonstrates the change in our knowledge. Grasshopper, for
>> some extra credit find some examples where the classification changes
>> because the members of the class evolve.
4b. I should have added this example. "Staff disease" is a term meaning,
approximately, whatever is going around in this hospital. As new
patients are admitted, the mix of infections changes. What is
interesting here is that probabilistic diagnoses and explanations have
great difficulties for a very interesting reason: the "priories" are
time dependent! Yet there is vocabulary to communicate about the concept
even though such conversations carried thru time can change truth values
back and forth with hind sight and foresight as well as advances in
medical knowledge.
>> For your homework, do better examples than the stages of a butterfly's
>> development. Also explain what it means when the official codification
>> of all eternal knowledge changes day by day and year by year. Is
>> knowledge eternal to you or is it a flexible structure that pulses and
>> changes in various ways?
>>
>> Should I predict what you will do with this message? Your choices (and
>> my guesses) include 1) ignore, 2) make a lot of snarky comments rather
>> than address what has been said, 3) edit out all those things you
>> don't understand, or 4) show some code and (incorrect) stuff in pseudo
>> math notation and try to appear above the level of grasshopper.
>>
>> We shall see!
>
> A knowledge ontology is the basic structure required to make a human
> mind using software. Before we can do this effectively we must first get
> a much better handle on the notion of truth itself. Tarski "proved" that
> it is impossible to formalize the notion of truth on the basis that he
> could not prove that the liar paradox is true. He never noticed that the
> liar paradox is not a truth bearer.
Most of the paragraphs directly above and below are incoherent. Mixing
ontology discussions with Tarski and truth is like discussing pigs and
the OED together. (Pick your sense of pig.) Then you throw Godel and
Wittgenstein in the mix and get gibberish. The most profound insight
attributed to Wittgenstein was, in paraphrase, "Even if two objects
share ever property in our knowledge, we cannot conclude that the
objects are the same." Now what does that do to your religious
convictions about ontology and truth?
> These same sort of issues arise with Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
> Wittgenstein summed it up the same way that I did before ever reading
> Wittgenstein: "This sentence cannot be proved" is simply not a truth
> bearer.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
> Wittgenstein's refutation of Gödel's incompleteness is on page 6.
Why would I read something you wrote that hasn't been peer reviewed and
published? I'm sure that it sums up your misunderstandings and mistakes
made over the last several decades.
New Insight: I was just about to send this message when I suddenly
realized: Strict non-changing hierarchies are the perfect knowledge
representation for you since you seem incapable of learning any thing
new or different. Particularly different. Your head is totally resistant
to new insights and information just like the representations you promote.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 9/25/2022 12:45 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 9/25/2022 9:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/25/2022 1:19 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2022 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> SORRY IF THIS IS REDUNDANT; I GOT MESSAGE THAT 1ST ATTEMPT TO POST
>>> FAILED>
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> I don't understand that part either. That part is inessential.
>>>> This is the foundation of knowledge ontology:
>>>
>>> How can you possibly tell that "it is inessential" when you don't
>>> understand it? There is so much you do not understand (proven by the
>>> total body of your crap posts) that you are in no position to judge
>>> most of the things you pontificate about.
>>>
>>> Example: the bullshit in the next paragraph.
>>>
>> That is a verbatim quote of Kurt Gödel:
>
> Why did he call it "simple types" rather than "types"? That was because
> he was writing about a baby step, not a complete Platonic epistemology.
>
>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that
>>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
>>>> individuals,
>>>> properties of individuals,
>>>> relations between individuals,
>>>> properties of such relations, etc.
>>>> and that sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears
>>>> the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are
>>>> not of
>>>> types fitting together.
>>>>
>>>> This is a knowledge ontology.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>>
>>> Most philosophers that I have known and/or read believe that Ontology
>>> has two main goals: 1) try to express what we know (so far) in ways
>>> that we know how to express it and 2) overlap with epistemology in an
>>> attempt to get a handle on what knowledge is. In other words, things
>>> like hierarchical organizations to express relationships are very
>>> nice. As far as they go, that is.
>>>
>>
>> 800 labor years were invested in the Cyc project's knowledge ontology.
>
> Cyc is doing good work trying to collect the part of what we know, where
> a simple-enough-to-use abstraction is enough. It's very impressive even
> though it's not an advance in philosophy.
>
>>> A large contribution to Herb Simon's ideas in this area were part of
>>> his support for his Nobel prize. He notes that structures, both
>>> natural and artificial, are mostly hierarchical but not quite. The
>>> reason is that they quickly die of their own weight and
>>> inefficiencies if they wear a hierarchical straight jacket.
>>>
>>
>> The natural preexisting order of knowledge is an inheritance hierarchy.
>
> No it isn't. Knowledge is in flux. We have no idea about universal
> truths; hell, we don't even know if there is a universe or this is a
> logical simulation. Then there are all those multi universe theories
> where each component has its own physics. Since we have no way to
> determine the truth or falsity of such claims, we have no preexisting
> order of things let alone an order of things.
>
>>> When and if you study more you might graduate from the class of
>>> ineffectual grasshopper to a level where you can consider harder
>>> problems more deeply. Then, perhaps, you will understand. For trivial
>>> insights, you might consider the following problem examples:
>>>
>>> 1. Words like bachelor that have multiple meanings. The fact that
>>> such words are used to make puns that depend on the listener's
>>> ability to realize what is beneath the surface shows the
>>> representation is inadequate.
>>>
>>
>> The Cyc project uses GUIDs for each unique sense meaning.
>
> That is nice but it is not the type of linguistic knowledge that we
> carry in our head. Cyc neither understands puns or makes them up. Cyc
> does not laugh.
>
>>> 2. The three leg dog that I met in Lexington, KY. The tracks he left
>>> (in the snow) had us curious for days wondering what sort of creature
>>> was about. Snow was a very very rare occurrence in KY; at the time
>>> the state had close to zero snow plows but by chance I learned that
>>> hierarchical categories didn't quite do it.
>>>
>>> 3. My pet cat belongs to an order that includes felines, it also
>>> belongs to the set of males. Each class of objects belongs to
>>> countless parent classes. This is not a hierarchy; it is (at best) an
>>> acyclic graph. The
>>
>> Same thing.
>
> Wrong again. By the way, Lenat's dissertation id more philosophically
> interesting than the Cyc work though the latter represents orders of
> magnitude more work.
>
>>> usual blind attempt to escape this dilemma is to declare some classes
>>> as properties, what ever in the hell that means, but the choices as
>>> to what constitutes classes and what are properties is quite ad hoc
>>> and gives the lie to the venture.
>>>
>>
>>> 4. The meaning of terms is quite time dependent. Even of scientific
>>> terms. Example, there is an infection called nocardia with about 80
>>> subtypes. Until recently, there was a debate about whether the germs
>>> were bacteria or something yeast-like, i.e., in the current hierarchy
>>> of life, there was a question of what Kingdom nocardia was in!!!! The
>>> question has been settled in modern times by sequencing its DNA. For
>>> the curious, it's a bacteria. So hierarchies will change over time.
>>> This bullet demonstrates the change in our knowledge. Grasshopper,
>>> for some extra credit find some examples where the classification
>>> changes because the members of the class evolve.
>
> 4b. I should have added this example. "Staff disease" is a term meaning,
> approximately, whatever is going around in this hospital. As new
> patients are admitted, the mix of infections changes. What is
> interesting here is that probabilistic diagnoses and explanations have
> great difficulties for a very interesting reason: the "priories" are
> time dependent! Yet there is vocabulary to communicate about the concept
> even though such conversations carried thru time can change truth values
> back and forth with hind sight and foresight as well as advances in
> medical knowledge.
>
>>> For your homework, do better examples than the stages of a
>>> butterfly's development. Also explain what it means when the official
>>> codification of all eternal knowledge changes day by day and year by
>>> year. Is knowledge eternal to you or is it a flexible structure that
>>> pulses and changes in various ways?
>>>
>>> Should I predict what you will do with this message? Your choices
>>> (and my guesses) include 1) ignore, 2) make a lot of snarky comments
>>> rather than address what has been said, 3) edit out all those things
>>> you don't understand, or 4) show some code and (incorrect) stuff in
>>> pseudo math notation and try to appear above the level of grasshopper.
>>>
>>> We shall see!
>>
>> A knowledge ontology is the basic structure required to make a human
>> mind using software. Before we can do this effectively we must first
>> get a much better handle on the notion of truth itself. Tarski
>> "proved" that it is impossible to formalize the notion of truth on the
>> basis that he could not prove that the liar paradox is true. He never
>> noticed that the liar paradox is not a truth bearer.
>
> Most of the paragraphs directly above and below are incoherent. Mixing
> ontology discussions with Tarski and truth is like discussing pigs and
> the OED together.

A knowledge ontology is the foundation for Tarski's meta-language, yet
he did not know this at the time.

> (Pick your sense of pig.) Then you throw Godel and
> Wittgenstein in the mix and get gibberish. The most profound insight
> attributed to Wittgenstein was, in paraphrase, "Even if two objects
> share ever property in our knowledge, we cannot conclude that the
> objects are the same." Now what does that do to your religious
> convictions about ontology and truth?
>