Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations between finite strings Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:47:58 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:47:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2579091"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 11143 Lines: 242 On 9/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/18/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-09-17 15:20:30 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 9/17/2024 9:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-09-17 13:01:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only way that we know that "cats" "animals" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is related to* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Yet equally applies to formal languages* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal languages are essentially nothing more than >>>>>>>>>>>>> relations between finite strings. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, >>>>>>>>>>>> usually defined >>>>>>>>>>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it >>>>>>>>>>>> belongs >>>>>>>>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else >>>>>>>>>>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary >>>>>>>>>>>> theorem means >>>>>>>>>>>> that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the >>>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be >>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether >>>>>>>>>>>> a string is a >>>>>>>>>>>> member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary >>>>>>>>>>>> theorems. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some of these relations between finite strings are >>>>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain >>>>>>>>>>>> realtions >>>>>>>>>>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually >>>>>>>>>>>> defined so >>>>>>>>>>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be >>>>>>>>>>>> inferred >>>>>>>>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary >>>>>>>>>>>> theorems >>>>>>>>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} {Animals}. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are no elementary theorems of English >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are billions of elementary theorems in English of >>>>>>>>> this form: finite_string_X finite_string_Y >>>>>>>>> I am stopping here at your first huge mistake. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English >>>>>>>> expressions >>>>>>>> of claims that that are not language specific. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals" >>>>>>>>> never had any inherent meaning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the >>>>>>>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact >>>>>>> same caveman grunt. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little >>>>>> about languages before 4000 BC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined >>>>>> beginning. >>>>>> If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and >>>>>> "catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then >>>>>> it is older than the English language. >>>>>> >>>>>>> There was point point in time when words came into >>>>>>> existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you >>>>>> consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even >>>>>> now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that >>>>>> can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words. >>>>> >>>>> None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is >>>>> it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj" >>>>> meaningless gibberish. >>>> >>>> It is not necessary to be told. I have learned many words simply >>>> observing how other peoöle use them. >>> >>> Inferring is merely indirectly being told. >> >> No, it is not. It is an entirely different process. Being told is not >> possible unless someone else already knows. Observation and inferring >> are possible even when nobody knows or no other people are present. >> Of course observation of people requires their presence but even then >> it is possible observe sometingh about them they don't know themselves. >> >>> If you sat in a cave with no outside contact then >>> word "cat" would remain pure gibberish forever. >> >> In that situation I would worry about other things. >> > > I am trying to explain how finite strings acquire > meaning and you just don't seem to want to hear it. But the meaning preceeds the finite strings. > > It is impossible to understand the foundation of > linguistic truth without first knowing its basis > and you just don't want to hear it. Which it seems YOU don't understand, so why should we listen to you. > >>>> Of course foreign langugage ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========