Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars
Tristan Wibberley <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | sci.logic,sci.math,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.philosophy |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 04/07/2026 22:12, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2026 12:11 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/4/2026 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> The English word "incomplete" establishes the base >>> meaning (parent node) in the knowledge ontology. >>> >>> I will not tolerate deceptive terms-of-the-art. >> >> In other words, you intend to lie by misusing definitions. >> > Math undecidable: The inability to translate > incoherent nonsense into a truth value. > LP := ~True(LP) > G := ~Provable(PA, G) Is it right to call that "incoherent"? "incoherent" would seem to me to be reservable for a purported demonstration of a deduction which is constructed of two deductions that do not validly lead from one to the other. "valueless" is accurate, technically, but it has an ordinary economic sense similar to "worthless". "non-normalisable" is accurate and, more usefully, so is "non-head-normalisable" (and some other related terms). "loopy" might be useful but readers would probably go insane at you because they go insane at much less. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.