On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises..
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means..
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ....
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.

On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics..
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward.. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> Actual Tech Professionals: --

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts")..
> > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> "We don't mean it, though."
> "That's a kind of crackpot."

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > "We don't mean it, though."
> > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that..
> > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> Good to know, right?

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > Good to know, right?
> Like, I didn't make that up.

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy"..)
> > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > Good to know, right?
> > Like, I didn't make that up.
> No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > Good to know, right?
> > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true.... and maybe not."
> Life is more like that, you know.

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true.... and maybe not."
> > Life is more like that, you know.
> At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see.." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> So are we done fouling their newsgroup?

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib".... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib.."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'.. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> Guess so!

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > Guess so!
> Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > > > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > > Guess so!
> > Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.
> It's just not possible to "respect" it, even as malicious hoaxing.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:33:07 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > > > > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > > > Guess so!
> > > Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.
> > It's just not possible to "respect" it, even as malicious hoaxing.
> Wider World: To whatever extent Usenet is "still a thing", crossposting is poor form and I didn't cross-post the item. "Yes, that's right."

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:36:24 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:33:07 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > > > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > > > > > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > > > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > > > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > > > > Guess so!
> > > > Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.
> > > It's just not possible to "respect" it, even as malicious hoaxing.
> > Wider World: To whatever extent Usenet is "still a thing", crossposting is poor form and I didn't cross-post the item. "Yes, that's right."
> "It hardly matters."
> Because Usenet is totally obsolete social media, yes. Otherwise not, it was a "big thing".
> "So why do you use it?"
> To clear my head, etc.