Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 7/8/2026 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 06/07/2026 20:39, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2026 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 05/07/2026 19:29, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> At the time the difference between "true" and "provable" was not yet
>>> understood to the extent it is now.
>>>
>>> That sentence can now be rejected as a violation of the current
>>> rules of the language game. Perhaps you don't understand what
>>> that means but Wittgenstein would if he still were alive.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> I reverse-engineered that exact same meaning on the
>> basis of first-principles long before I ever heard
>> of Wittgenstein.
> 
> The understanding of the difference between "true" and "provable" has
> signifincantly improved after 1937.
> 
> There is no point to say "true in Russell's sytem" because the same
> can be said more clarly with the words "proved in Russell's system".
> 

Once the entire body of empirical and analytical
general knowledge expressed in language is fully
encoded as axioms how to do verify that Paris is
in France? (We just look it up)

Here is the very dumbed down version:
Once every fact is written down how to we know
that X is a fact? (We just look it up).

-- 
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).