Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 7/5/2026 9:19 AM, dbush wrote:
> 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
> 

Wittgenstein (1937)
'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's
system' means: the opposite has been proved
in Russell's system

Ultimately the above is true and one key PTS author
comes very close to agreeing with that.

*Truth as an Epistemic Notion*
What is the appropriate notion of truth for
sentences whose meanings are understood in
epistemic terms such as proof or ground for
an assertion? It seems that the truth of such
sentences has to be identified with the existence
of proofs...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-011-9107-6

> 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.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).