Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 7/5/2026 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Your lack of response is acceptance of the above definition.

>>
>>>
>>> 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...

Nothing above challenges the above stipulated definition of a complete 
system, so this constitutes your acceptance of that definition.

> 
> 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.

Your lack of response constitutes your admission that the below function 
successfully computes the mapping of all ints to 0.

>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
>