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 (GKEUL)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:28:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <vrvl8c$i7jg$1@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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 02:28:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c02b2fbd14b50058ad84772f528c9a";
	logging-data="597616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Q1vZj/0A0RkCBB4ggDIz/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:h7fS/ah9gECP/baZhrHAYJPaK3Q=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250325-18, 3/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <9f965484486b10e1d4c092ba9933334c2f959074@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7324

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/

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