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: 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 22:32:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4lir8$3n5d$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v4le45$3n5d$6@i2pn2.org> <v4lgq9$3rfk3$3@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 02:32:08 -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: <v4lgq9$3rfk3$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 19735
Lines: 499

On 6/15/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> {78ce6fe0-f304-4918-9c6e-852958455689}
> <26bc2b12-ff16-4552-a364-8efc2943f1f4>
> {f7b78c94-1871-4a8e-85ab-bd2840fa8375}
> 
> Would be understood to mean {cat} <is a> {animal}

And what connect that {cat}/{78ce6fe0-f304-4918-9c6e-852958455689} to 
our normal meaning of the animal cat? as opposed to just the GUID that 
specifies a particular sense-choice of a word that has no actual 
definitoin of ther than how it relates to all the other nodes that have 
no assigned meaning.

> 
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> No wonder.

Right, they have a BSEECS degree. People coming out of MIT need to know 
a bit about how the computer actually works in addition to how to 
program them.

I guess you just don't care to check your facts,.  But hten, since 
"truth" is a foreign concept to you, so is the idea of "facts"

> 
>> And, I would put it as YOU don't understand material that is 
>> fundamental to the field.
>>
>>>
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========