Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars
dbush <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | sci.logic,sci.math,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.philosophy |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/4/2026 5:12 PM, 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.
False.
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be
impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct
yes-or-no answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
> LP := ~True(LP)
> G := ~Provable(PA, G)
The above are not examples of that.
>
> Math Incomplete: The inability to accomplish
> more than a system was defined to accomplish.
False. Intent does not factor into formal systems.
In mathematical logic, a theory is complete if it is consistent and for
every closed formula in the theory's language, either that formula or
its negation is provable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_theory
> (∀x, S(x) ≠ x) cannot be proven in Q
>
> Math mapping from an input to an output:
> Ignore the input and output a fixed constant.
Provide an external reference that 1) defines "ignoring the input" and
2) forbids it.
> int mapping_function(int x)
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
>
All you're proving is that you can't understand that words can have
different meanings in different contexts that aren't necessarily related.