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: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:10:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <vs1ceb$271tn$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <9f965484486b10e1d4c092ba9933334c2f959074@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvl8c$i7jg$1@dont-email.me>
 <b73da1de53b32a98fb1186bc70a9885a07e20e47@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvqal$ncok$1@dont-email.me>
 <87e4cfceb56fc53fc2147d55f09086f94335bf87@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 18:10:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="88ba9b82b9ad47c804872df204670e33";
	logging-data="2328503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19bkJ/bdxsPIjD6s2ys1v4b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u4EAnHvBimhCNA6SjDrQ0jn9uJA=
In-Reply-To: <87e4cfceb56fc53fc2147d55f09086f94335bf87@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250326-0, 3/25/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9182

On 3/26/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/25/25 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/25/2025 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/25/25 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't say it understands what it is doing.
>>>
>>> Note, "Arithmetic" is a purely symbolic operation, actually definable 
>>> with a fairly small set of rules.
>>>
>>> You are just again looking at summaries of ideas and think you know 
>>> how they actually work.
>>>
>>
>> It says that its abilities baffle its own designers.
> 
> So? That doesn't mean the machine understands what is does.
> 
> All you are doing is proving you don't understand the meaning of the 
> words you use.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========