XPost: sci.logic, alt.philosophy, comp.theory
XPost: comp.ai.philosophy
From: polcott333@gmail.com

On 1/3/2026 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/3/26 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/2/2026 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/2/26 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2026 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/26 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2026 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/26 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2018 11:56 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2018 12:42 AM, Pete Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> a Collection is defined one or more things that have one or
>>>>>>>>>> more properties in common. These operations from set theory
>>>>>>>>>> are available: {⊆, ∈}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An BaseFact is an expression X of (natural or formal) language
>>>>>>>>>> L that has been assigned the semantic property of True.
>>>>>>>>>> (Similar to a math Axiom).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A Collection T of BaseFacts of language L forms the ultimate
>>>>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of Truth in language L.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To verify that an expression X of language L is True or False
>>>>>>>>>> only requires a syntactic logical consequence inference chain
>>>>>>>>>> (formal proof) from one or more elements of T to X or ~X.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, X)
>>>>>>>>>> False(L, X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFact(L) Provable(Γ, ~X)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2018 (and many other years since 1997) Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truth is the set of interlocking concepts that can be
>>>>>>>>> formalized symbolically.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of formalized Truth is only about relations between finite
>>>>>>>>> strings of characters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This exact same Truth can be equally expressed (tokenized) as
>>>>>>>>> relations between integers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2026 update
>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>>>> is entirely expressed as relations between finite strings
>>>>>>>> of characters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This by itself makes
>>>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>>>> reliably computable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, not until you can do the first, which you can't unless you
>>>>>>> make you system "small".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you are doing it proving you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly what someone would say that doesn't
>>>>>> understand what I am talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU don't know what you are talking about,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I coined the term ignorance squared back in 1998.
>>>>>> One cannot discern one's own ignorance because
>>>>>> this requires the missing knowledge to see the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you are just ignorance cubed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the same idea in much greater depth
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and Hilbert was proven WRONG, and admitted it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It sure would seem that way to everyone that did
>>>> not devote half their life to finding complete clarity.
>>>
>>> No, he was proven WRONG, and he admitted it.
>>>
>>
>> He may have admitted it but he was not actually
>> been proven wrong.
>
> Sure he was.
>
> Can you actually prove he was right?
>

Yes

> Not just based on an argument that starts by assuming him right.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> All of computation can be construed as applying finite
>>>> string transformation rules to finite string inputs.
>>>
>>> Yes, but some results are not computable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anything that cannot be so derived is outside of
>>>> the scope of computation.
>>>
>>> You don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Yes, if it can't be described as a transformation it is out of scope.
>>>
>>
>> See that you proved that you do understand
>> what I am talking about.
>
> So, you don't know what a transformation is.
>
> Halting *IS* a transformation of input to output, just not a computable
> transformation.
>

All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
inputs by finite string transformation rules into
{Accept, Reject} values.

The ultimate measure the actual sequence of steps that
the actual finite string input specifies to HHH(DD)
is DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of C.

This is the correct finite string transformations for
HHH to apply to its actual finite string input DD.

There exists no finite string transformation rules
that HHH(DD) can apply to its input to derive the
behavior of its caller DD() executed in main.

Therefore the requirement that HHH do this is a
requirement that its outside the scope of computation.

>>
>>> But not all transformations are computable, as some need an infinite
>>> number o them.
>>>
>>
>> Right like Goldbach conjecture.
>
> Right, which is an example that proves your idea doesn't work.
>
> How can you compute if it is true from the "Meaning of its words".
>
> The meaning of its words says that it definitely WILL be true or not, as
> either an even number exists that isn't the sum of two primes, or there
> isn't. But so far we haven't found a way to prove which.
>
> So either something which by its meaning has a truth value doesn't have
> one, or you accept that the answer might be uncomutable.
>
>>
>>> You are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> He wanted mathematics to be able to prove the problems, and it was
>>>>> shown that it could not.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems by failing to study the history of the last century, you
>>>>> are just repeating the errors that have been discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
Copyright 2026 Olcott



My 28 year goal has been to make 

"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"

reliably computable.



This required establishing a new foundation


--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)