Re: Terms-Of-The-Art are Liars

On 09/07/2026 06:40, olcott wrote:
> 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).

That works as long as nobody asks anything that is not already answered.
But the set of possible questions is larger than any memory to store
the facts. The system can answer a much wider set of quesstions if it
has some ability to infer and to find facts for inference. That there
is no complete method to answwer every answerable question should not
prevent from answering at least some unexpected qestions.

-- 
Mikko