Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
 between finite strings
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:47:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <eadb86390a3444ea4fb628a5762711cc8eddc2f8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb8ku7$3m85g$2@dont-email.me> <vc1910$rkci$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc1ioa$tcfb$3@dont-email.me> <vc3hb8$1cgbd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc44vt$1ge14$1@dont-email.me> <vc662i$22r9n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc74cf$2948m$1@dont-email.me> <vc8o7j$2nsv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vc96eo$2qm11$1@dont-email.me> <vcb8bh$3crak$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcbujh$3h6av$1@dont-email.me> <vcc4mk$3ibls$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcc6nv$3imfa$1@dont-email.me> <vce2jc$8tg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcei9i$2ggb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:47:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2579091"; 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: <vcei9i$2ggb$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11143
Lines: 242

On 9/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/18/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-17 15:20:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/17/2024 9:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-17 13:01:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is related to*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Yet equally applies to formal languages*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> usually defined
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it 
>>>>>>>>>>>> belongs
>>>>>>>>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or 
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else
>>>>>>>>>>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary 
>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem means
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be 
>>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether 
>>>>>>>>>>>> a string is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary 
>>>>>>>>>>>> theorems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of these relations between finite strings are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain 
>>>>>>>>>>>> realtions
>>>>>>>>>>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually 
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined so
>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be 
>>>>>>>>>>>> inferred
>>>>>>>>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary 
>>>>>>>>>>>> theorems
>>>>>>>>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are no elementary theorems of English
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
>>>>>>>>> this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
>>>>>>>>> I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English 
>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>> of claims that that are not language specific.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
>>>>>>>>> never had any inherent meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the
>>>>>>>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
>>>>>>> same caveman grunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little
>>>>>> about languages before 4000 BC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined 
>>>>>> beginning.
>>>>>> If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and
>>>>>> "catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then
>>>>>> it is older than the English language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was point point in time when words came into
>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you
>>>>>> consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even
>>>>>> now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that
>>>>>> can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words.
>>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is
>>>>> it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj"
>>>>> meaningless gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> It is not necessary to be told. I have learned many words simply
>>>> observing how other peoöle use them.
>>>
>>> Inferring is merely indirectly being told.
>>
>> No, it is not. It is an entirely different process. Being told is not
>> possible unless someone else already knows. Observation and inferring
>> are possible even when nobody knows or no other people are present.
>> Of course observation of people requires their presence but even then
>> it is possible observe sometingh about them they don't know themselves.
>>
>>> If you sat in a cave with no outside contact then
>>> word "cat" would remain pure gibberish forever.
>>
>> In that situation I would worry about other things.
>>
> 
> I am trying to explain how finite strings acquire
> meaning and you just don't seem to want to hear it.

But the meaning preceeds the finite strings.

> 
> It is impossible to understand the foundation of
> linguistic truth without first knowing its basis
> and you just don't want to hear it.

Which it seems YOU don't understand, so why should we listen to you.

> 
>>>> Of course foreign langugage
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========