Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic
 knowledge
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:55:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vrq008$35a4m$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me>
 <3cf0a34d9382774fd8275a118d1af8b0841c8eb1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrhacd$3fbja$1@dont-email.me> <vrj8nr$16c78$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjmtr$1ilbe$1@dont-email.me> <vrmomn$b31e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrmsmp$cvat$4@dont-email.me>
 <4fcdc85c3c241ccf5dae48e0812f51fcd5aee1d3@i2pn2.org>
 <vrn1p6$hpve$2@dont-email.me>
 <ead79b94d318e397648f1d43f41d6616be3392a4@i2pn2.org>
 <vrn294$hpve$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd20e0d9005a654e445500e64917832f34de1f6e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrpi98$2qbhf$4@dont-email.me>
 <5deca4d0b2a0776b85bd3a4ade3cb99690f54c51@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 22:55:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51";
	logging-data="3319958"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SVeq9fqDtEYajrqaYAV7w"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZEULaL5XsWR1Xn5S/ChBNqnj7dU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <5deca4d0b2a0776b85bd3a4ade3cb99690f54c51@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4013

On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/23/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/23/2025 10:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:15:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 3/22/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:07:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>>>> It is pretty stupid to claim that Knowledge "⊂" Truth is an 
>>>>>> example of
>>>>>> fraud.
>>>>>> True(X) works perfectly within the body of knowledge that can be
>>>>>> expressed using language.
>>>>> But not for unknown truths.
>>>> Is it really that hard to understand that knowledge does not include
>>>> unknowns?
>>> No, but unknowns are still true.
>>>
>>
>> When we define the set of all general knowledge
>> that can be expressed using language then we
>> have the basis for creating artificial general
>> intelligence.
>>
> 
> Nope, you just don't understand how AI works.
> 
> There is a computational barrier that limits how many "facts" the 
> "neuron cluster" can remember based on its "size", and the computational 
> requirement grow exponentially with size, so the limitation isn't how 
> much "data" we can provide the system, but how well we can pre-organize 
> things so it doesn't need to actually "learn" stuff.
> 

I am referring to a tree of knowledge similar to the work of Doug Lenat.
This is not any sort of neural network.

> Your problem is you just don't understand the nature of what you talk 
> about, but seem to have read just the CliffsNotes version and think you 
> understand the details which were never actually discussed in the 
> abreviation given.
> 
> This causes you to not know what you don't know, and then your nature 
> seems to assume that you can make up what every you want and just assume 
> it to be true, which just makes you system broken.
> 

If this was not pure bullshit you would have not started
with the assumption that AI <is> neural networks.

> Sorry, you are proven that you are totally ignorant of the basics of the 
> things you talk about, and that your "arguments" are just based on the 
> FRAUD of using incorrect definitions for core terms, because you think 
> you are allowed to change the.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer