On 12/12/2022 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/12/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/11/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:41:07 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:11:02 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 11:46 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 19:16:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 10:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:33:27 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 9:21 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:11:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 15:53:29 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which one is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The disjunction requires a valid proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless φ is provable or refutable φ is not a logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERGO!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 to n is NOT a logic expression. Because logic expressiong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g the sort of things you are referring to when you say
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "φ") DON'T contain free variables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Using my MTT one can construct an 1,2,3,4...n ary logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> expression using
>>>>>>>>>>>> a slightly adapted FOL syntax.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot. By **your very own rule**: Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢
>>>>>>>>>>> ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the expression "1,2,3,4...n" is **NOT** a valid logic
>>>>>>>>>>> expression!
>>>>>>>>>> Only because you did not encode it correctly: ∃n ∈ ℕ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, Sir.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_interpretation#The_interpretation
>>>>>>>>> A proof of P ∨ Q is either <0,a> where a is a proof o P or
>>>>>>>>> <1,b> where b is a proof of Q.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sir. You can interpret <0,a> and <1, b> through the semantics
>>>>>>>>> of the usual Either-monad. Sir.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where Left and Right are the usual projections: Left<a,b> ↔ a
>>>>>>>>> and Right<a,b> ↔ b
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/category-extras-0.52.0/docs/Control-Monad-Either.html
>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(φ) 0 1 0 1
>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(¬φ) 0 0 1 1
>>>>>>>> ∨ 0 1 1 1
>>>>>>> *sigh* Moron. What is confusing you about the sentence
>>>>>>> "Disjunctions require proof"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ∨ operator is a disjunction.. It's not enough to tell us that
>>>>>>> P or Q is a theorem. That claim is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order to complete the claim you need to provide us with the
>>>>>>> additional information telling us **which one** (P or Q) holds!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The truth table already has the fully semantics of all of that and
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> know this thus are only playing deceptive head games.
>>>>> One more time for the slow kid in the room...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance hierarchy
>>>> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system must be
>>>> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
>>>
>>> Soure of this?
>>>
>>> Why do things need to be based on a foundation that didn't exist when
>>> they were founded?
>>>
>>> Seems untruthful to me.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand what Epistemology is about, it isn't
>>> about "Truth", but "Knowledge", which are different things.
>>>
>>
>> Not really, truth includes things that are unknown, yet the only way
>> that we know any analytic expressions of language are true is we
>> understand the semantic connections that define their meaning. The
>> entirely body of semantic truth is true on the basis of semantic
>> tautology.
>
> Right, and since the rules of a system create a "Reality", there are
> some statements that are EMPIRICALLY true that can't be analytically
> proven (they require the application of an unbounded number of rules,
> while an analytic proof needs a bounded number of steps).
>

You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical (verified
with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the meaning of
expressions of language.

> Again, you confuse KNOWING that something is true, with it BEING true.
>
>>
>>> Yes, we can only KNOW something to be true by either PROVING it
>>> (analytical Truth) or OBSERVING it (Synthetic Truth), but it can be
>>> True but unknown.
>>>
>>
>> Analytic expressions of language are verified as completely true
>> entirely based on their meaning. In other words they are semantic
>> tautologies.
>
> VERIFIED, not ARE. Again, confustion of Knowledge with Truth.
>

The only reason that analytic expressions are true is that they are
semantic tautologies.

>>
>> True, but, unknown could only exist for analytical expressions of
>> language that have unknown semantic connections.
>
> or unknowable connection, because they are at an unbound distance.
>
>>
>> True within the body of human knowledge and unprovable within the body
>> of human knowledge cannot possibly exist because provable merely
>> verifies the semantic connections that make it true.
>>
>
> Why does it need to be VERIFIED? Again, confusiong KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.
>
> You just don't seem to comprend that something are beyond the finite
> nature of analytic proof, but can still be true.
>
>>>>
>>>> (1) Expressions of (formal or natural) language that are stipulated to
>>>> have the semantic value of Boolean true. Same idea as Haskell Curry
>>>> elementary theorems or natural language verified facts.
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>
>>>> (2) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (1)
>>>> or the output of (2).
>>>
>>> And what in this requires that actually True statements be Provable?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> (1) Are proven to be true on the basis of their membership in (1).
>>
>> (2) Are proven to be true by applying truth preserving operations to
>> (1) and/or the output of (2).
>
> And what says they need to be PROVEN at all?
>
> What about things that are True because they are True.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level
>>>> ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the
>>>> sense used in information science) which consists of very general terms
>>>> (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all
>>>> domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad
>>>> semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific
>>>> ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of
>>>> definitions.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology
>>>>
>>>> The rest of what you say is totally extraneous to this.
>>>
>>> But ontologies are discovered, not defined.
>>
>> So you discovered that {cats} <are> {animals} without ever being told
>> the meaning of these words?
>
> We Assign meanings to the words, and then DISCOVER that the things we
> call Cats are in fact, a sub-class of the things we call animals.
>
> Sometimes we find that our previous classification are in fact WRONG.

On 12/12/22 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/12/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:41:07 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:11:02 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 11:46 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 19:16:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 10:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:33:27 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 9:21 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:11:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 15:53:29 UTC+2, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which one is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The disjunction requires a valid proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless φ is provable or refutable φ is not a logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERGO!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 to n is NOT a logic expression. Because logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressiong (e.g the sort of things you are referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you say "φ") DON'T contain free variables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using my MTT one can construct an 1,2,3,4...n ary logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slightly adapted FOL syntax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot. By **your very own rule**: Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢
>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the expression "1,2,3,4...n" is **NOT** a valid logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> expression!
>>>>>>>>>>> Only because you did not encode it correctly: ∃n ∈ ℕ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_interpretation#The_interpretation
>>>>>>>>>> A proof of P ∨ Q is either <0,a> where a is a proof o P or
>>>>>>>>>> <1,b> where b is a proof of Q.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sir. You can interpret <0,a> and <1, b> through the semantics
>>>>>>>>>> of the usual Either-monad. Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where Left and Right are the usual projections: Left<a,b> ↔ a
>>>>>>>>>> and Right<a,b> ↔ b
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/category-extras-0.52.0/docs/Control-Monad-Either.html
>>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(φ) 0 1 0 1
>>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(¬φ) 0 0 1 1
>>>>>>>>> ∨ 0 1 1 1
>>>>>>>> *sigh* Moron. What is confusing you about the sentence
>>>>>>>> "Disjunctions require proof"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ∨ operator is a disjunction.. It's not enough to tell us
>>>>>>>> that P or Q is a theorem. That claim is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In order to complete the claim you need to provide us with the
>>>>>>>> additional information telling us **which one** (P or Q) holds!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth table already has the fully semantics of all of that
>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>> know this thus are only playing deceptive head games.
>>>>>> One more time for the slow kid in the room...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance hierarchy
>>>>> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system
>>>>> must be
>>>>> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
>>>>
>>>> Soure of this?
>>>>
>>>> Why do things need to be based on a foundation that didn't exist
>>>> when they were founded?
>>>>
>>>> Seems untruthful to me.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand what Epistemology is about, it isn't
>>>> about "Truth", but "Knowledge", which are different things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not really, truth includes things that are unknown, yet the only way
>>> that we know any analytic expressions of language are true is we
>>> understand the semantic connections that define their meaning. The
>>> entirely body of semantic truth is true on the basis of semantic
>>> tautology.
>>
>> Right, and since the rules of a system create a "Reality", there are
>> some statements that are EMPIRICALLY true that can't be analytically
>> proven (they require the application of an unbounded number of rules,
>> while an analytic proof needs a bounded number of steps).
>>
>
> You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical (verified
> with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the meaning of
> expressions of language.

No, YOU don't seem to understand the difference between Knowledge, Truth
that has been verified, and Actual Truth.

You seem to think we need to be Omniscient.

>
>> Again, you confuse KNOWING that something is true, with it BEING true.
>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, we can only KNOW something to be true by either PROVING it
>>>> (analytical Truth) or OBSERVING it (Synthetic Truth), but it can be
>>>> True but unknown.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Analytic expressions of language are verified as completely true
>>> entirely based on their meaning. In other words they are semantic
>>> tautologies.
>>
>> VERIFIED, not ARE. Again, confustion of Knowledge with Truth.
>>
>
> The only reason that analytic expressions are true is that they are
> semantic tautologies.

No. Analytic proofs can be based on the use of Emperical Facts, which
means they are NOT tautologies. We can analytically prove that Same is a
Black Anaimal based on the Emperical Facts that Same is Black, and Sam
is a Cat, and the categorical statement that Cats are Animals.

Tautologies are statements that are True indpendent of Emperical Facts
(true in all models). That Sam is a Black Animal is NOT a Tautology.

>
>>>
>>> True, but, unknown could only exist for analytical expressions of
>>> language that have unknown semantic connections.
>>
>> or unknowable connection, because they are at an unbound distance.
>>
>>>
>>> True within the body of human knowledge and unprovable within the
>>> body of human knowledge cannot possibly exist because provable merely
>>> verifies the semantic connections that make it true.
>>>
>>
>> Why does it need to be VERIFIED? Again, confusiong KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.
>>
>> You just don't seem to comprend that something are beyond the finite
>> nature of analytic proof, but can still be true.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Expressions of (formal or natural) language that are stipulated to
>>>>> have the semantic value of Boolean true. Same idea as Haskell Curry
>>>>> elementary theorems or natural language verified facts.
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to (1)
>>>>> or the output of (2).
>>>>
>>>> And what in this requires that actually True statements be Provable?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> (1) Are proven to be true on the basis of their membership in (1).
>>>
>>> (2) Are proven to be true by applying truth preserving operations to
>>> (1) and/or the output of (2).
>>
>> And what says they need to be PROVEN at all?
>>
>> What about things that are True because they are True.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level
>>>>> ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the
>>>>> sense used in information science) which consists of very general
>>>>> terms
>>>>> (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all
>>>>> domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support
>>>>> broad
>>>>> semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific
>>>>> ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of
>>>>> definitions.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of what you say is totally extraneous to this.
>>>>
>>>> But ontologies are discovered, not defined.
>>>
>>> So you discovered that {cats} <are> {animals} without ever being told
>>> the meaning of these words?
>>
>> We Assign meanings to the words, and then DISCOVER that the things we
>> call Cats are in fact, a sub-class of the things we call animals.
>>
>> Sometimes we find that our previous classification are in fact WRONG.
>
> Yes it may be the case that {cats} have always been {house bricks} and
> we simply never noticed that {office buildings} are made out of {cats}.

On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 16:52:22 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 6:35 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 22:38:33 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance hierarchy
> >> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system must be
> >> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
> > 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> >
> > Dumb foundationalist!
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism
> Anyone that rejects tautologies is necessarily incorrect. The entire set
> of analytic truth is based on mutually self defining semantic
> tautologies. You don't know what any of these words mean so disagree to
> mask your willful ignorance.

You dumb motherfucker! I am not rejecting your tautology.

I am DECLARING that the negation of your tautology is ALSO a tautology!

∃x can be defined as a tautology.
-∃x can also be defined as a tautology.

You don't understand computation. Idiot.

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 03:52:00 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical (verified
> with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the meaning of
> expressions of language.
You don't seem to understand what happened in 1951.

The analytic-synthetic distinction got ass-fucked!

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

On 12/13/22 5:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 03:52:00 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical (verified
>> with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the meaning of
>> expressions of language.
> You don't seem to understand what happened in 1951.
>
> The analytic-synthetic distinction got ass-fucked!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

He's much farther behind than that, so of course he wouldn't understand
that.

On 12/13/2022 4:55 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 03:52:00 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical (verified
>> with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the meaning of
>> expressions of language.
> You don't seem to understand what happened in 1951.
>
> The analytic-synthetic distinction got ass-fucked!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

Here is the original paper:
https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf

Meaning Postulates Rudolf Carnap 1952
∀(x) (Bachelor(x) → ¬Married(x))
https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

Quine was simply too stupid to understand that all bachelors are
unmarried. Richard Montague greatly expanded upon Carnap's meaning
postulates.

Analytic expressions of language can be verified as true entirely based
on their meaning: {dogs are animals} is stipulated to be true.

Empirical expressions of language must have sense data from the sense
organs to verify their truth: {I see a dog in my living room right now}.

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

On 12/13/2022 4:51 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 16:52:22 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 6:35 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 22:38:33 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance hierarchy
>>>> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system must be
>>>> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>
>>> Dumb foundationalist!
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism
>> Anyone that rejects tautologies is necessarily incorrect. The entire set
>> of analytic truth is based on mutually self defining semantic
>> tautologies. You don't know what any of these words mean so disagree to
>> mask your willful ignorance.
>
> You dumb motherfucker! I am not rejecting your tautology.
>
> I am DECLARING that the negation of your tautology is ALSO a tautology!
>
All that you are doing is negating a necessarily true statement thus
forming A lie.

{A square has four equal length} sides is a tautology.
{A square does not have four equal length sides} is a falsehood.

> ∃x can be defined as a tautology.
> -∃x can also be defined as a tautology.
>
> You don't understand computation. Idiot.
>

Is is an objective fact that I am a genius.

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

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 16:17:23 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Meaning Postulates Rudolf Carnap 1952
> ∀(x) (Bachelor(x) → ¬Married(x))
> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>
> Quine was simply too stupid to understand that all bachelors are
> unmarried. Richard Montague greatly expanded upon Carnap's meaning
> postulates.
No, you are just too stupid to understand cognitive synonymy.

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

∀(x) (Bachelor(x) → ¬Married(x))
∀(x) (Divorced(x) → ¬Married(x))

Your logic is too stupid to take the history of x into account so it can't distinguish between presently not married and never-before married.

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 16:22:21 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> All that you are doing is negating a necessarily true statement thus
> forming A lie.
You are confusing the contingent with the necessary.

> {A square has four equal length} sides is a tautology.
> {A square does not have four equal length sides} is a falsehood.
Q.E.D That's only true contingent upon Euclidian geometry. It's not true in other geometries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square#Non-Euclidean_geometry

> Is is an objective fact that I am a genius.
That's only true contingent upon your own definition of "genius", which corresponds to everyone else's definition of "moron"

On 12/12/2022 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/12/22 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/12/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:41:07 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:11:02 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 11:46 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 19:16:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 10:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:33:27 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 9:21 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:11:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 15:53:29 UTC+2, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which one is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The disjunction requires a valid proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless φ is provable or refutable φ is not a logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERGO!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 to n is NOT a logic expression. Because logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressiong (e.g the sort of things you are referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you say "φ") DON'T contain free variables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using my MTT one can construct an 1,2,3,4...n ary logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slightly adapted FOL syntax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot. By **your very own rule**: Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the expression "1,2,3,4...n" is **NOT** a valid logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only because you did not encode it correctly: ∃n ∈ ℕ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_interpretation#The_interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>> A proof of P ∨ Q is either <0,a> where a is a proof o P or
>>>>>>>>>>> <1,b> where b is a proof of Q.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sir. You can interpret <0,a> and <1, b> through the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>> of the usual Either-monad. Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where Left and Right are the usual projections: Left<a,b> ↔ a
>>>>>>>>>>> and Right<a,b> ↔ b
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/category-extras-0.52.0/docs/Control-Monad-Either.html
>>>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(φ) 0 1 0 1
>>>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(¬φ) 0 0 1 1
>>>>>>>>>> ∨ 0 1 1 1
>>>>>>>>> *sigh* Moron. What is confusing you about the sentence
>>>>>>>>> "Disjunctions require proof"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ∨ operator is a disjunction.. It's not enough to tell us
>>>>>>>>> that P or Q is a theorem. That claim is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In order to complete the claim you need to provide us with the
>>>>>>>>> additional information telling us **which one** (P or Q) holds!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The truth table already has the fully semantics of all of that
>>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>>> know this thus are only playing deceptive head games.
>>>>>>> One more time for the slow kid in the room...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance
>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system
>>>>>> must be
>>>>>> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Soure of this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do things need to be based on a foundation that didn't exist
>>>>> when they were founded?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems untruthful to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to understand what Epistemology is about, it isn't
>>>>> about "Truth", but "Knowledge", which are different things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not really, truth includes things that are unknown, yet the only way
>>>> that we know any analytic expressions of language are true is we
>>>> understand the semantic connections that define their meaning. The
>>>> entirely body of semantic truth is true on the basis of semantic
>>>> tautology.
>>>
>>> Right, and since the rules of a system create a "Reality", there are
>>> some statements that are EMPIRICALLY true that can't be analytically
>>> proven (they require the application of an unbounded number of rules,
>>> while an analytic proof needs a bounded number of steps).
>>>
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical
>> (verified with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the
>> meaning of expressions of language.
>
> No, YOU don't seem to understand the difference between Knowledge, Truth
> that has been verified, and Actual Truth.
>

knowledge ⊂ truth

> You seem to think we need to be Omniscient.
>
>>
>>> Again, you confuse KNOWING that something is true, with it BEING true.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we can only KNOW something to be true by either PROVING it
>>>>> (analytical Truth) or OBSERVING it (Synthetic Truth), but it can be
>>>>> True but unknown.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Analytic expressions of language are verified as completely true
>>>> entirely based on their meaning. In other words they are semantic
>>>> tautologies.
>>>
>>> VERIFIED, not ARE. Again, confustion of Knowledge with Truth.
>>>
>>
>> The only reason that analytic expressions are true is that they are
>> semantic tautologies.
>
> No. Analytic proofs can be based on the use of Emperical Facts, which

Empirical(x) ≡ ¬Analytical(x)
Empirical(x) requires sense data for the sense organs.

> means they are NOT tautologies. We can analytically prove that Same is a
> Black Anaimal based on the Emperical Facts that Same is Black, and Sam
> is a Cat, and the categorical statement that Cats are Animals.
>
> Tautologies are statements that are True indpendent of Emperical Facts
> (true in all models). That Sam is a Black Animal is NOT a Tautology.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> True, but, unknown could only exist for analytical expressions of
>>>> language that have unknown semantic connections.
>>>
>>> or unknowable connection, because they are at an unbound distance.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> True within the body of human knowledge and unprovable within the
>>>> body of human knowledge cannot possibly exist because provable
>>>> merely verifies the semantic connections that make it true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why does it need to be VERIFIED? Again, confusiong KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.
>>>
>>> You just don't seem to comprend that something are beyond the finite
>>> nature of analytic proof, but can still be true.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Expressions of (formal or natural) language that are
>>>>>> stipulated to
>>>>>> have the semantic value of Boolean true. Same idea as Haskell Curry
>>>>>> elementary theorems or natural language verified facts.
>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Expressions derived by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>>>> (1)
>>>>>> or the output of (2).
>>>>>
>>>>> And what in this requires that actually True statements be Provable?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (1) Are proven to be true on the basis of their membership in (1).
>>>>
>>>> (2) Are proven to be true by applying truth preserving operations to
>>>> (1) and/or the output of (2).
>>>
>>> And what says they need to be PROVEN at all?
>>>
>>> What about things that are True because they are True.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level
>>>>>> ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the
>>>>>> sense used in information science) which consists of very general
>>>>>> terms
>>>>>> (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all
>>>>>> domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support
>>>>>> broad
>>>>>> semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific
>>>>>> ontologies by providing a common starting point for the
>>>>>> formulation of
>>>>>> definitions.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest of what you say is totally extraneous to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> But ontologies are discovered, not defined.
>>>>
>>>> So you discovered that {cats} <are> {animals} without ever being
>>>> told the meaning of these words?
>>>
>>> We Assign meanings to the words, and then DISCOVER that the things we
>>> call Cats are in fact, a sub-class of the things we call animals.
>>>
>>> Sometimes we find that our previous classification are in fact WRONG.
>>
>> Yes it may be the case that {cats} have always been {house bricks} and
>> we simply never noticed that {office buildings} are made out of {cats}.
>
> Maybe not, but we have learned that while we used to classify all life
> into two Kingdoms as Animal or Plant, that there are other Kingdoms of
> creatures that don't really fit into either, like Fungi.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The article you reference also points out that even the major
>>>>> advocates of an "Upper Ontology" don't claim that this cover ALL
>>>>> aspects of the universe, just enough to be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is an upper ontology thus defines the nature of truth itself.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Truth IS.
>>
>> non-existent until defined.
>> Can't exist apart from the abstraction of language.
>
> Nope, everything in the Universe was, even before language existed.
>

On 12/13/2022 9:15 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 16:17:23 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> Meaning Postulates Rudolf Carnap 1952
>> ∀(x) (Bachelor(x) → ¬Married(x))
>> https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
>>
>> Quine was simply too stupid to understand that all bachelors are
>> unmarried. Richard Montague greatly expanded upon Carnap's meaning
>> postulates.
> No, you are just too stupid to understand cognitive synonymy.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_synonymy
>
> ∀(x) (Bachelor(x) → ¬Married(x))
> ∀(x) (Divorced(x) → ¬Married(x))
>
> Your logic is too stupid to take the history of x into account so it can't distinguish between presently not married and never-before married.

¬Married is a necessary yet insufficient condition of bachelorhood.

Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
married from divorced. It is not that hard after one spends five years
studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.

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

On 12/13/2022 9:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 16:22:21 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> All that you are doing is negating a necessarily true statement thus
>> forming A lie.
> You are confusing the contingent with the necessary.
>
>> {A square has four equal length} sides is a tautology.
>> {A square does not have four equal length sides} is a falsehood.
> Q.E.D That's only true contingent upon Euclidian geometry. It's not true in other geometries.
>

Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID thus utterly eliminating the
nonsense of giving the same word multiple incompatible meanings.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square#Non-Euclidean_geometry
>
>> Is is an objective fact that I am a genius.
> That's only true contingent upon your own definition of "genius", which corresponds to everyone else's definition of "moron"
>

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

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:03:23 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> ¬Married is a necessary yet insufficient condition of bachelorhood.
It entirely depends on which bachelorhood you are talking about!

Marital status is irrelevant for Bachelor of Science.

> Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
> married from divorced.
Which is entirely Quine's point! What you mean by "meaning" is rather vague and fluid!

> studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
> understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
> inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.
We tried that. It didn't work.

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

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:07:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID thus utterly eliminating the
> nonsense of giving the same word multiple incompatible meanings.
ROFL. So which meaning is FEABFBB7-AE6C-4422-B759-D54E5E2DA935 ?

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:07:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 12/13/2022 9:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 16:22:21 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> All that you are doing is negating a necessarily true statement thus
> >> forming A lie.
> > You are confusing the contingent with the necessary.
> >
> >> {A square has four equal length} sides is a tautology.
> >> {A square does not have four equal length sides} is a falsehood.
> > Q.E.D That's only true contingent upon Euclidian geometry. It's not true in other geometries.
> >
> Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID thus utterly eliminating the
> nonsense of giving the same word multiple incompatible meanings.

You know, at one point compression and general AI were considered equivalent problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutter_Prize

Assigning a unique GUID for every possible meaningful context-dependent English expression is the exact opposite of compression - and therefore: the exact opposite of intelligence.

Like I said - you are fucking dumb.

On 12/13/2022 10:15 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:03:23 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> ¬Married is a necessary yet insufficient condition of bachelorhood.
> It entirely depends on which bachelorhood you are talking about!
>

Its GUID specifies which one.

> Marital status is irrelevant for Bachelor of Science.
>
>> Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
>> married from divorced.
> Which is entirely Quine's point! What you mean by "meaning" is rather vague and fluid!
>

It is neither vague nor fluid it is always precisely true that
Bachelor(X) e00b3d63-8241-4512-bdf7-645361d3eed7 means
not 0a5cc311-e8e2-4dc8-a6c4-819dfb79956a
married(X) 01a50774-4498-4bc6-bace-1960ad3c1645

>> studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
>> understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
>> inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.
> We tried that. It didn't work.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
>

<sarcasm>
Sure everyone knows that the sum total of all human knowledge was
completely specified as a knowledge ontology long ago.
</sarcasm>

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

On 12/13/2022 10:17 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:07:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID thus utterly eliminating the
>> nonsense of giving the same word multiple incompatible meanings.
> ROFL. So which meaning is FEABFBB7-AE6C-4422-B759-D54E5E2DA935 ?
>

That one is currently unassigned.
Doug Lenat's CYC has many of them assigned.

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

On 12/13/2022 10:21 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 18:07:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/13/2022 9:20 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 16:22:21 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> All that you are doing is negating a necessarily true statement thus
>>>> forming A lie.
>>> You are confusing the contingent with the necessary.
>>>
>>>> {A square has four equal length} sides is a tautology.
>>>> {A square does not have four equal length sides} is a falsehood.
>>> Q.E.D That's only true contingent upon Euclidian geometry. It's not true in other geometries.
>>>
>> Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID thus utterly eliminating the
>> nonsense of giving the same word multiple incompatible meanings.
>
> You know, at one point compression and general AI were considered equivalent problems.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutter_Prize
>
> Assigning a unique GUID for every possible meaningful context-dependent English expression

General knowledge is handled by one knowledge ontology, context is
handled by another separate discourse knowledge ontology.

The first one defines the meaning of words, the second one composes
these meanings into sentences within a discourse.

> is the exact opposite of compression - and therefore: the exact opposite of intelligence.
>
> Like I said - you are fucking dumb.

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

On Tuesday, 13 December 2022 at 19:41:00 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> General knowledge is handled by one knowledge ontology, context is
> handled by another separate discourse knowledge ontology.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So now you have multiple ontologies?

Which ontology is The One True Ontology?

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:03:23 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>
> Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
> married from divorced. It is not that hard after one spends five years
> studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
> understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
> inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.

In what way do the modifiers "inheritance hierarchy" modify the meaning of
"tree" in your system?

On 12/13/2022 3:49 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:03:23 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
>> married from divorced. It is not that hard after one spends five years
>> studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
>> understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
>> inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.
>
> In what way do the modifiers "inheritance hierarchy" modify the meaning of
> "tree" in your system?

Semantic meanings inherit their meaning from varying levels of base
meanings. My key example of this is rejecting a set containing itself as
semantically incoherent in that no physical or conceptual thing can
possibly fully contain itself.

Try and imagine a can of soup that totally contains itself such that it
has no outside surfaces...

Russell's paradox (and every other undecidable proposition) has never
been anything more than semantically incoherent.

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

On 12/13/22 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/13/2022 4:51 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Monday, 12 December 2022 at 16:52:22 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 6:35 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 22:38:33 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance hierarchy
>>>>> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system
>>>>> must be
>>>>> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
>>>> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
>>>>
>>>> Dumb foundationalist!
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-foundationalism
>>> Anyone that rejects tautologies is necessarily incorrect. The entire set
>>> of analytic truth is based on mutually self defining semantic
>>> tautologies. You don't know what any of these words mean so disagree to
>>> mask your willful ignorance.
>>
>> You dumb motherfucker! I am not rejecting your tautology.
>>
>> I am DECLARING that the negation of your tautology is ALSO a tautology!
>>
> All that you are doing is negating a necessarily true statement thus
> forming A lie.
>
> {A square has four equal length} sides is a tautology.
> {A square does not have four equal length sides} is a falsehood.
>
>> ∃x can be defined as a tautology.
>> -∃x can also be defined as a tautology.
>>
>> You don't understand computation. Idiot.
>>
>
> Is is an objective fact that I am a genius.
>

Then PROVE it.

You seem to have proved the opposite.

On 12/13/22 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/12/22 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:41:07 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 1:29 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 21:11:02 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 11:46 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 19:16:05 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 10:39 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:33:27 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 9:21 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 17:11:05 UTC+2, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 8:44 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2022 at 15:53:29 UTC+2, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which one is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The disjunction requires a valid proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless φ is provable or refutable φ is not a logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERGO!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 to n is NOT a logic expression. Because logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressiong (e.g the sort of things you are referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you say "φ") DON'T contain free variables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using my MTT one can construct an 1,2,3,4...n ary logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a slightly adapted FOL syntax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot. By **your very own rule**: Valid(φ) ↔ ((T ⊢ φ) ∨ (T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⊢ ¬φ))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the expression "1,2,3,4...n" is **NOT** a valid logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only because you did not encode it correctly: ∃n ∈ ℕ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer%E2%80%93Heyting%E2%80%93Kolmogorov_interpretation#The_interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof of P ∨ Q is either <0,a> where a is a proof o P or
>>>>>>>>>>>> <1,b> where b is a proof of Q.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sir. You can interpret <0,a> and <1, b> through the
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the usual Either-monad. Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Left and Right are the usual projections: Left<a,b> ↔
>>>>>>>>>>>> a and Right<a,b> ↔ b
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/category-extras-0.52.0/docs/Control-Monad-Either.html
>>>>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(φ) 0 1 0 1
>>>>>>>>>>> Is_a_Theorem_of_T(¬φ) 0 0 1 1
>>>>>>>>>>> ∨ 0 1 1 1
>>>>>>>>>> *sigh* Moron. What is confusing you about the sentence
>>>>>>>>>> "Disjunctions require proof"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ∨ operator is a disjunction.. It's not enough to tell us
>>>>>>>>>> that P or Q is a theorem. That claim is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In order to complete the claim you need to provide us with the
>>>>>>>>>> additional information telling us **which one** (P or Q) holds!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The truth table already has the fully semantics of all of that
>>>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>>>> know this thus are only playing deceptive head games.
>>>>>>>> One more time for the slow kid in the room...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am establishing the epistemological foundation inheritance
>>>>>>> hierarchy
>>>>>>> (upper ontology) of analytical truth itself. Every logic system
>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>> derived from this foundation or it is incorrect by definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Soure of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do things need to be based on a foundation that didn't exist
>>>>>> when they were founded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems untruthful to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what Epistemology is about, it isn't
>>>>>> about "Truth", but "Knowledge", which are different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really, truth includes things that are unknown, yet the only way
>>>>> that we know any analytic expressions of language are true is we
>>>>> understand the semantic connections that define their meaning. The
>>>>> entirely body of semantic truth is true on the basis of semantic
>>>>> tautology.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and since the rules of a system create a "Reality", there are
>>>> some statements that are EMPIRICALLY true that can't be analytically
>>>> proven (they require the application of an unbounded number of
>>>> rules, while an analytic proof needs a bounded number of steps).
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand the difference between empirical
>>> (verified with sense organs) and analytical verified based on the
>>> meaning of expressions of language.
>>
>> No, YOU don't seem to understand the difference between Knowledge,
>> Truth that has been verified, and Actual Truth.
>>
>
> knowledge ⊂ truth

Right, so some Truth is not part of Knowledge, and even some CAN'T be
known (or it might get pulled into the proper sub-set), and thus some
Truth is unprovable.

You just ADMITTED that your claim that all Truth must be Provable is
incorrect.

>
>> You seem to think we need to be Omniscient.
>>
>>>
>>>> Again, you confuse KNOWING that something is true, with it BEING true.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we can only KNOW something to be true by either PROVING it
>>>>>> (analytical Truth) or OBSERVING it (Synthetic Truth), but it can
>>>>>> be True but unknown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Analytic expressions of language are verified as completely true
>>>>> entirely based on their meaning. In other words they are semantic
>>>>> tautologies.
>>>>
>>>> VERIFIED, not ARE. Again, confustion of Knowledge with Truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only reason that analytic expressions are true is that they are
>>> semantic tautologies.
>>
>> No. Analytic proofs can be based on the use of Emperical Facts, which
>
> Empirical(x) ≡ ¬Analytical(x)
> Empirical(x) requires sense data for the sense organs.

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:31:57 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> On 12/13/2022 3:49 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:03:23 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >>
> >> Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
> >> married from divorced. It is not that hard after one spends five years
> >> studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
> >> understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
> >> inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.
> >
> > In what way do the modifiers "inheritance hierarchy" modify the meaning of
> > "tree" in your system?
> Semantic meanings inherit their meaning from varying levels of base
> meanings. My key example of this is rejecting a set containing itself as
> semantically incoherent in that no physical or conceptual thing can
> possibly fully contain itself.
>
> Try and imagine a can of soup that totally contains itself such that it
> has no outside surfaces...
>
> Russell's paradox (and every other undecidable proposition) has never
> been anything more than semantically incoherent.
>
Does "inheritance hierarchy tree" have the same meaning as "tree"?

On 12/13/2022 8:55 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 2:31:57 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/13/2022 3:49 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 8:03:23 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Additional meaning postulates must be specified to distinguish never
>>>> married from divorced. It is not that hard after one spends five years
>>>> studying the work of Richard Montague. After one does this then one
>>>> understands that most human general knowledge can be encoded in a single
>>>> inheritance hierarchy tree of knowledge.
>>>
>>> In what way do the modifiers "inheritance hierarchy" modify the meaning of
>>> "tree" in your system?
>> Semantic meanings inherit their meaning from varying levels of base
>> meanings. My key example of this is rejecting a set containing itself as
>> semantically incoherent in that no physical or conceptual thing can
>> possibly fully contain itself.
>>
>> Try and imagine a can of soup that totally contains itself such that it
>> has no outside surfaces...
>>
>> Russell's paradox (and every other undecidable proposition) has never
>> been anything more than semantically incoherent.
>>
> Does "inheritance hierarchy tree" have the same meaning as "tree"?

It is a tree data structure in computer science similar to the C++
inheritance hierarchy.

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