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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth
 Itself is not Broken.
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 21:11:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4le45$3n5d$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4iutm$39bc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ivig$kqh$9@i2pn2.org> <v4ivti$39gh7$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4j28d$kqh$10@i2pn2.org> <v4j2ck$39ub0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4j2u4$kqh$13@i2pn2.org> <v4j3bd$3a0ot$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4js1c$2218$2@i2pn2.org> <v4k5aq$3fnqu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4k69h$2218$3@i2pn2.org> <v4k84g$3gc4t$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4k9gi$2219$2@i2pn2.org> <v4kafp$3gc4t$7@dont-email.me>
 <v4kbc0$2218$16@i2pn2.org> <v4kcn5$3h3iu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4kdcc$2218$18@i2pn2.org> <v4kefm$3h3iu$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4kf8g$2219$7@i2pn2.org> <v4kflr$3hugj$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4kg3f$2218$20@i2pn2.org> <v4kgop$3hugj$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4khir$2219$9@i2pn2.org> <v4ki8q$3ib3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4kim5$2219$11@i2pn2.org> <v4kj9m$3iid3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4kjod$2218$22@i2pn2.org> <v4kl14$3ircc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4klf7$2219$13@i2pn2.org> <v4kp9p$3jfm0$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4l6q6$3n5d$2@i2pn2.org> <v4l83h$3m8b0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4l9ea$3n5d$4@i2pn2.org> <v4lc8n$3n4dj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 01:11:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="122029"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4lc8n$3n4dj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14694
Lines: 367

On 6/15/24 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
>>>>>>>>>>> It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
>>>>>>>>>>> a time thus never actually circular.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
>>>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a CYCLE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a 
>>>>>>>> cycle if its only definition is its relationships.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
>>>>>>> to a finite recursive depth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course everyone can see that these two identical questions
>>>>> have NOTHING to do with each other:
>>>>>
>>>>> "What is a {thing}?"
>>>>> "What is a {thing}?"
>>>>
>>>> So, where do you get the anser?
>>>>
>>>> Note, it is "what is a {thing}?" and NOT "what are the children of 
>>>> {thing}?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
>>> specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
>>> and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> HOW?
>>
>> All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child 
>> relationship between terms.
>>
>> If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING 
>> about the actual meaning of the words.
>>
>> I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>>
> 
> I guess that you can't begin to understand this
> without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.

I understand them, and the graph itself gives you the 
interrelationships, but you still need to assign meaning to the terms or 
some form of linkage of the nodes in the graph to the thing they are 
supposed to represent.

> 
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to like wrong questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You seems to deny the identity principle.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
>>>>>>>>> recursive depth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close 
>>>>>>>> your eyes to the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
>>>>>>> of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
>>>>>>> clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can't point to any specific gaps in my reasoning proves
>>>>> that you only have baseless rhetoric. I think that we established
>>>>> that my IQ is higher than yours haven't we? I forget.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I Have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have not.
>>>
>>>> You don't understand.
>>>>
>>>> An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even remember that conversation?
>>
>> You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
>>
>> You said it was impossible.
>>
> 
> I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
> meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
> You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.

Which just shows your stupidity, as MIT doesn't HAVE a BSCS degree.

And, I would put it as YOU don't understand material that is fundamental 
to the field.

> 
>>
>> Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is 
>> not that high.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically 
>>>>>>>>>> existing thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
>>>>>>>>>>> until is reaches the node where it stops.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What are your parent types?
>>>>>>>>>>> What are your child types?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By 
>>>>>>>>>> all your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and 
>>>>>>>>>> {Physically existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of a collection of all its sub-componets  (which gives 
>>>>>>>>>>>> you a circular definition 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========