Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)

[Logik]

The concept of {bachelor} will have a unique place within an inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology
so think of it as something roughly like this: Marital_State->Bachelor

Of all the possible meanings (e.g semantics) of the word 'bachelor' how did you DECIDE on that particular one?

[Logik]

Since I am ONLY defining the [is_a_type_of] aspect of "are" this is provided below:

When did YOU get to define the meaning of MY words?

[PeteOlcott]

The concept of {bachelor} will have a unique place within an inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology
so think of it as something roughly like this: Marital_State->Bachelor

Of all the possible meanings (e.g semantics) of the word 'bachelor' how did you DECIDE on that particular one?

It was the only one that was related to unmarried.

[PeteOlcott]

Since I am ONLY defining the [is_a_type_of] aspect of "are" this is provided below:

When did YOU get to define the meaning of MY words?

These were my words that you paraphrased incorrectly.

When I used the English word: "are" I was referring to the [is_a_type_of] operator.

[Logik]

These were my words that you paraphrased incorrectly.

When I used the English word: "are" I was referring to the [is_a_type_of] operator.

OK, but when I used the English word "are" I WAS NOT referring to the [is_a_type_of] operator.

Are you even hearing me speak over the sound of your own voice?

[Logik]

It was the only one that was related to unmarried.

It wasn't the meaning I was intending to convey.

[PeteOlcott]

It was the only one that was related to unmarried.

It wasn't the meaning I was intending to convey.

http://blog.tnsemployeeinsights.com/wp- ... ocess3.png
I gave you feedback that your decoding of my encoded meaning did not correspond to the meaning that I encoded.

[Logik]

http://blog.tnsemployeeinsights.com/wp- ... ocess3.png
I gave you feedback that your decoding of my encoded meaning did not correspond to the meaning that I encoded.

Pete, you are confused.

I was the one encoding meaning, you were the one decoding meaning. I was the one giving you English examples and you were the one trying to formalize them.

Take 2 steps back and recalibrate yourself.

roses are red.
cats are animals.
animals are hungry.
in-laws are late for dinner.
glasses are broken.

I am pointing out to you that ALL of the sentences above are true in English. But Truth breaks down under formalism:

roses ◁ red
cats ◁ animals
animals ◁ hungry
in-laws ◁ late for dinner
glasses ◁ broken

[PeteOlcott]

http://blog.tnsemployeeinsights.com/wp- ... ocess3.png
I gave you feedback that your decoding of my encoded meaning did not correspond to the meaning that I encoded.

Pete, you are confused.

I was the one encoding meaning, you were the one decoding meaning. I was the one giving you English examples and you were the one trying to formalize them.

Take 2 steps back and recalibrate yourself.

roses are red.
cats are animals.
animals are hungry.
in-laws are late for dinner.
glasses are broken.

I am pointing out to you that ALL of the sentences above are true in English. But Truth breaks down under formalism:

roses ◁ red
cats ◁ animals
animals ◁ hungry
in-laws ◁ late for dinner
glasses ◁ broken

I already corrected your incorrect decoding once I mean [is_a_type_of]
I still mean [is_a_type_of]. I only used the less precise term initially
to avoid giving you more information than you could handle.

[Logik]

I already corrected your incorrect decoding once I mean [is_a_type_of]
I still mean [is_a_type_of]. I only used the less precise term initially
to avoid giving you more information than you could handle.

Pete, you clearly didn't hear me the first time when I said it.
I am not the one DECODING meaning.
I am the one ENCODING meaning.

I am speaking - you are listening.

What you are calling "correcting my meaning" I call "misinterpreting my words". Colloquially known as a strawman.

Please get off your high horse before I knock you the fuck off. OK? O K.

I am ENCODING (communicating) Truth with the following English sentences.

roses are red.
cats are animals.
animals are hungry.
in-laws are late for dinner.
glasses are broken.

Please help us formalize the above Truth.

[PeteOlcott]

I already corrected your incorrect decoding once I mean [is_a_type_of]
I still mean [is_a_type_of]. I only used the less precise term initially
to avoid giving you more information than you could handle.

Pete, you clearly didn't hear me the first time when I said it.
I am not the one DECODING meaning.
I am the one ENCODING meaning.

I am speaking - you are listening.

What you are calling "correcting my meaning" I call "misinterpreting my words". Colloquially known as a strawman.

Please get off your high horse before I knock you the fuck off. OK? O K.

I am ENCODING (communicating) Truth with the following English sentences.

roses are red.
cats are animals.
animals are hungry.
in-laws are late for dinner.
glasses are broken.

Please help us formalize the above Truth.

Your meaning is NOT the subject that I am discussing. It is off topic.
The topic is transforming formal proof into sound deduction.
Please stay on topic.

[Logik]

Your meaning is NOT the subject that I am discussing. It is off topic.
The topic is transforming formal proof into sound deduction.
Please stay on topic.

Pete, you are re-inventing the Curry-Howard isomorphism.

Stanford has been paying you a salary for 22 years. Is there a point at which you contribute something to the body of knowledge that we don't already know?

And I can't see why my request is off-topic.

If you can turn "cats are animals" into sound deduction, why can't you do the same with all other propositions?

[PeteOlcott]

Your meaning is NOT the subject that I am discussing. It is off topic.
The topic is transforming formal proof into sound deduction.
Please stay on topic.

Pete, you are re-inventing the Curry-Howard isomorphism.

Stanford has been paying you a salary for 22 years. Is there a point at which you contribute something to the body of knowledge that we don't already know?

And I can't see why my request is off-topic.

If you can turn "cats are animals" into sound deduction, why can't you do the same with all other propositions?

I closed the expressiveness gap of formal proofs to theorem consequences of symbolic logic
by converting these formal proofs to conform to the sound deductive inference model.

[Logik]

I closed the expressiveness gap of formal proofs to theorem consequences of symbolic logic
by converting these formal proofs to conform to the sound deductive inference model.

You are attempting to remove semantic overloading from formal systems.

That's the exact opposite of closing a gap. You are limiting expression.

[PeteOlcott]

I closed the expressiveness gap of formal proofs to theorem consequences of symbolic logic
by converting these formal proofs to conform to the sound deductive inference model.

You are attempting to remove semantic overloading from formal systems.

That's the exact opposite of closing a gap. You are limiting expression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

Not at all. Ambiguity is not more expressive than the absence of ambiguity.
Every term is uniquely qualified to specify only a single semantic meaning.