Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vsb9ks$19ka5$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: 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, 30 Mar 2025 06:24:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 89 Message-ID: <vsb9ks$19ka5$2@dont-email.me> References: <vrfvbd$256og$2@dont-email.me> <vrh432$39r47$1@dont-email.me> <vrhami$3fbja$2@dont-email.me> <vrj9lu$1791p$1@dont-email.me> <vrjn82$1ilbe$2@dont-email.me> <vrmpc1$bnp3$1@dont-email.me> <vrmteo$cvat$6@dont-email.me> <vru000$33rof$1@dont-email.me> <vrug71$3gia2$6@dont-email.me> <vs0e9v$1cg8n$1@dont-email.me> <vs1fda$296sp$3@dont-email.me> <vs3b1d$3aoq$1@dont-email.me> <vs3iap$9lob$1@dont-email.me> <4def165aebe9e5753eeb66673c705370b247a7e3@i2pn2.org> <vs4utt$1c1ja$12@dont-email.me> <82344d9130ea950af2f0ff091a19265242b9608a@i2pn2.org> <vs6u85$39556$16@dont-email.me> <567c32439deb84febf4111f4bd0792a9538c1ba1@i2pn2.org> <vs902d$1fccq$4@dont-email.me> <vsb4pv$14ups$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 13:24:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4510a7740351c2a9dd78cd9cd81f9c96"; logging-data="1364293"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lujk9cqFbLZXMDr0CKsgm" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:BnrvmIfqV6A+elczIFPIeMI1MJA= In-Reply-To: <vsb4pv$14ups$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message On 3/30/2025 5:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-03-29 14:28:29 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 3/28/2025 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/28/25 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/28/2025 5:33 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:44:28 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 3/27/2025 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:03 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-26 18:01:14 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am NOT referring to what is merely presented as the body of >>>>>>>>>> general knowledge, I am referring to the actual body of general >>>>>>>>>> knowledge. Within this hypothesis it is easy to see that True(X) >>>>>>>>>> would be infallible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In that case your True(X) is uncomputable and any theory that >>>>>>>>> contains it is incomplete. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The body of general knowledge that can be expressed using >>>>>>>> language is >>>>>>>> defined to be complete. The moment that new knowledge that can be >>>>>>>> expressed in language comes into existence it is added to the set. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No its not. We KNOW there are things we don't know yet, but hope to. >>>>>>> >>>>>> As soon as the first person knows new general knowledge and this >>>>>> knowledge can be written down (unlike the actual direct physical >>>>>> sensation of smelling a rose) >>>>>> then this becomes an element of this set of knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And, the base of a logic system is STATIC and fixed. >>>>>> The set of general knowledge that can be expressed in language has >>>>>> more >>>>>> flexibility than that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You just don't understand the meaning of the words you are using. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True(X) merely tests for membership in this set; >>>>>>>> (a) Is X a Basic Fact? Then X is true. >>>>>>> Which makes it not a TRUTH test, but a KNOWLEDGE test, and thus not >>>>>>> names right. >>>>>> The set of all general knowledge that can be expressed in language >>>>>> is a >>>>>> subset of all truth and only excludes unknown and unknowable. >>>> >>>>> Exactly, it doesn't include the unknown truths and ought to be called >>>>> Known(X). It is also contradictory since it gives NO both for unknowns >>>>> and their negation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *The key defining aspect of knowledge is that it is true* >>> >>> Which has been the eternal debate, how can we tell if some "fact" we >>> have discovered is true. >>> >>> In FORMAL LOGIC (which you just dismissed) truth has a solid >>> definition, and we can formally PROVE some statements to be true and >>> formally PROVE that some statements are just false, and thus such >>> statements CAN become truely established knowledge. There may also be >>> some statements we have not established yet (and maybe can never >>> establish in the system) which will remain as "unknown". That doesn't >>> mean the statements might not be true or false, just that we don't >>> know the answer yet. >>> >> >> This can be incoherent unless complete semantics is fully >> integrated into the formal system. > > Note that the order of the presentation is important. Before you can > present any semantics of anything you must already have presented at > least the syntax and semantics of everyting you are going to use in > the presentation of the semantics. > That is incoherent. We define generic grammar capable of expressing the full semantics of all of natural language. Montague grammar embedded in a knowledge ontology is a good start. lymphodepleting Chemotherapy today not much time to talk. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer