home bbs files messages ]

Just a sample of the Echomail archive

SCILANG:

<< oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]

 Message 297,298 of 297,383 
 olcott to Richard Damon 
 Re: Computing truth values from finite s 
 03 Jan 26 19:51:43 
 
XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
XPost: comp.ai.philosophy
From: polcott333@gmail.com

On 1/3/2026 7:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/3/26 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/3/2026 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/3/26 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/2026 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/26 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string
>>>>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into
>>>>>> {Accept, Reject} values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus making
>>>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
>>>>>> inherently computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does that answer the question of the truth of the statement:
>>>>>
>>>>> All Even Number greater than 2 are the sum of two primes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not a member of the body of knowledge.
>>>> My system only applies to the body of knowledge.
>>>
>>> And thus is admittedly, not a logic system, which is about a body of
>>> truths derived from axioms and rules.
>>>
>>> In fact, you system can never learn anything new, as that wasn't part
>>> of that body, so isn't allowed.
>>>
>>> So, all you are doing is admitting you have been on a wrong track for
>>> decades, you you were never actually looking at logic systems.
>>>
>>
>> We are probably already too late and the world
>> will be killed by climate change hired liars.
>>
>> My system could have prevented that but having
>> trollish fun carried more weight than preventing
>> the end of life an Earth.
>
> Nope, your system of lies is what you say is causing the problem.
>
> Your problem is you don't understand what truth actually is.
>
> This is shown just by the fact that you beleive the LLMs you talk with.
>

Do you understand the correct semantic entailment
on the basis of expressions of language that are
stipulated to be true derives conclusions that are
necessarily true?

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able
>>>>> to be computed.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because
>>>>> you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--
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)

<< oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca