Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 05/07/2026 00:12, 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)
> 
> Math Incomplete: The inability to accomplish
> more than a system was defined to accomplish.
> (∀x, S(x) ≠ x) cannot be proven in Q

The above fails to connect the concepts: that neither (∀x, S(x) ≠ x)
nor its negation is prvable in Q can be expresed as "(∀x, S(x) ≠ x)
is undecidable in Q" or as "Q is incomplete", though the latter is
sufficient only when (∀x, S(x) ≠ x) is not interesting other than
as an example.

> Math mapping from an input to an output:
> Ignore the input and output a fixed constant.
> int mapping_function(int x)
> {
>    return 0;
> }

Perfectly valid C. Rarely needed but very useful when needed.

That demanding some respect of defintions may expose prevent your
attempts to deceive by equivocation is not a sufficient reason to
ignore the defintions.

-- 
Mikko