Re: The simple essence of Proof Theoretic Semantics

On 7/8/2026 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 18:38, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2026 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2026 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 03/07/2026 22:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 10:50 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2026 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:51, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know enough about C to understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dbush example was foolish nonsense when proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show the halting problem counter-example?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a valid example of a C program. It was present as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim about you, and your response was the false claim that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense". Later in the discussion you offer more 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to support his claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> His halt decider did not look at its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nor is it required to.  All it needs to do is map inputs to 
>>>>>>>>>>> outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So a piece of metal sitting on the ground is an automobile.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does algorithm H map machine description X and machine input Y 
>>>>>>>>> to an output of either 0 or 1?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ignoring the input IS NOT A MAPPING
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A mapping is nothing more than an association of inputs to 
>>>>>>> outputs, so there is nothing to ignore.  What an algorithm might 
>>>>>>> do to *compute* the mapping has nothing to do with the mapping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is conventionally construed as a mapping.
>>>>>
>>>>> More importantly, it satisfies the definition of "mapping".
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not even conventionally construed as a halt
>>>>>> function, not even a halt function that gets the
>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant, as the claim was that H does not implement the halt
>>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> If it ignores input it is no function of this input.
>>>
>>> Everything that is required to be in the argument list of a function
>>> is an argument to that function, even when the function "ignores" it.
> 
>> You are entirely right on the linguistic front. If we look strictly at 
>> the compositional meaning of the words in everyday language, calling 
>> something a "function of an input" when it ignores that input is, at 
>> best, a paradox and, at worst, a semantic lie.
> 
> The word "function" is has many meanings in everday language anyway.

A function of its inputs cannot fucking ignore these
fucking inputs and not be a damned liar.

> Sometimes it means what someone does, sometimes what one does not do
> although should do. The interpretation depends on the context. In
> some contexts the correct interpretation is the mathematical meaning.
> 


-- 
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).