Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 7/6/2026 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 7/4/26 2:12 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.
>> 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
>>
>> Math mapping from an input to an output:
>> Ignore the input and output a fixed constant.
>> int mapping_function(int x)
>> {
>>    return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
> 
> i honestly don't think u can get around the liar's paradox with logic 
> that treats statements of truth as universal
> 

I am not doing anything like that.

-- 
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).