Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge (GKEUL)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 07:04:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <87e4cfceb56fc53fc2147d55f09086f94335bf87@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me> <vrj8nr$16c78$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me>
 <7d0164a6001fc519a244b7ed4930d757b9bd7ac1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl0tr$2na3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <cc75e1bdfa918eedc80a9230b0484acda284dc56@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl3fn$2nttr$3@dont-email.me>
 <8c4ea7f74348f8becac017bb33d6cab1b30f5e01@i2pn2.org>
 <vrl9ab$2t44r$3@dont-email.me> <vrmp2s$bc8p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrmt6e$cvat$5@dont-email.me> <vrtv1n$333lh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vruepv$3gia2$2@dont-email.me>
 <9f965484486b10e1d4c092ba9933334c2f959074@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvl8c$i7jg$1@dont-email.me>
 <b73da1de53b32a98fb1186bc70a9885a07e20e47@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvqal$ncok$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:25:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1823100"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrvqal$ncok$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8268
Lines: 159

On 3/25/25 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/25/25 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/25 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2025 5:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-22 17:49:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 11:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-22 03:03:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 6:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/25 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-20 14:57:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/25 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that analytic knowledge is limited 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of knowledge that can be expressed using language or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying truth preserving operations to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just means that you have stipulated yourself out 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all classical logic, since Truth is different than 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge. In a good logic system, Knowledge will be a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subset of Truth, but you have defined that in your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, Truth is a subset of Knowledge, so you have it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True(X) always returns TRUE for every element in the set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed using language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never gets confused by paradoxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not useful unless it returns TRUE for no X that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be inferred from the set of general knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't parse that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (a) Not useful unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (b) it returns TRUE for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (c) no X that contradicts anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > (d) that can be inferred from the set of general 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because my system begins with basic facts and actual facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't contradict each other and no contradiction can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formed by applying only truth preserving operations to these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic facts there are no contradictions in the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you system doesn't because you don't actually 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are trying to define.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Human Knowledge" is full of contradictions and incorrect 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adittedly, most of them can be resolved by properly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting the statements into context, but the problem is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that for some statement, the context isn't precisely known 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the statement is known to be an approximation of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknown accuracy, so doesn't actually specify a "fact".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evidence that for every element of the set of human
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed using language that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> SO, you admit you don't know what it means to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the proof is only syntactic then it isn't directly
>>>>>>>>>>> connected to any meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Formal Logic proofs ARE just "syntactic"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the body of human general knowledge has all of its
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics encoded syntactically AKA Montague Grammar of
>>>>>>>>>>> Semantics then a proof means validation of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, proof is a validatation of truth, but truth does not need 
>>>>>>>>>> to be able to be validated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True(X) ONLY validates that X is true and does nothing else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can believe the "nothing else" part. The rest would require a 
>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(X) is a predicate implementing a membership algorithm
>>>>>>> for the body of general knowledge that can be expressed
>>>>>>> using language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Infinite proofs cannot be provided. Find a counter-example
>>>>>>> where an element of the set of general knowledge that can
>>>>>>> be expressed using language(GKEUL) would fool a True(X)
>>>>>>> predicate into providing the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" cannot be derived by applying
>>>>>>> truth preserving operations to basic facts thus is rejected
>>>>>>> as not a member of (GKEUL).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does your True(X) say when X means that there is no method to
>>>>>> determine whether a sentence of the first order group theory can
>>>>>> be proven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is either in the body of knowledge or not.
>>>>> When something like deep learning eventually
>>>>> causes it to have a deeper understanding than
>>>>> humans it may prove that human understanding
>>>>> of this is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just don't understand how "AI" works.
>>>>
>>>> Current AI has ZERO understanding of what it is processing.
>>>>
>>>> Work to try to make processing have understanding is running in the 
>>>> problem of complexity.
>>>
>>> You are wrong again
>>> https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/04/1089403/large-language- 
>>> models-amazing-but-nobody-knows-why/
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't say it understands what it is doing.
>>
>> Note, "Arithmetic" is a purely symbolic operation, actually definable 
>> with a fairly small set of rules.
>>
>> You are just again looking at summaries of ideas and think you know 
>> how they actually work.
>>
> 
> It says that its abilities baffle its own designers.

So? That doesn't mean the machine understands what is does.

All you are doing is proving you don't understand the meaning of the 
words you use.

> 
>> Sorry, but you are just proving your natural stupidity.
> 
>