Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[PeteOlcott]

Prolog fully implements this proof for the scope of first order logic.
A query returns Yes indicates true.
The negation of a query returns Yes indicates false.
Neither the query nor its negation returns Yes indicates semantically malformed.

Yes. That's exactly the structure I have put in place for you!

https://repl.it/repls/GiftedPassionateSlash
Now - show me the real magic. implement the provable() function!

Prolog is first order logic, the provability of first order logic is second order logic.
We can get around this as follows:
The return of Yes to a query indicates provable.
The return of Yes to a negation of a query indicates refutable.
The lack of a return of Yes to a query or Yes to the negation of a query indicate unprovable.

[Skepdick]

Prolog is first order logic

It is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog#Tu ... mpleteness

Turing-completeness means N-th order logic. Prolog may have a poor vocabulary, but it has the capability.

, the provability of first order logic is second order logic.

Oh, there we go - the same inductivist game all Mathematicians play with themselves,

What's the provability of N-th order logic?

Either you are playing the Axiom-to-Theorem game (Mathematics)
Or you are playing the Theorem-to-Axiom game (Reverse Mathematics)

Which one is it? The decision-space of your function is tiny (2 bits). The input-space of your function is all of the English language!

I am thinking you are playing the Theorem-to-Axiom game...

[PeteOlcott]

Prolog is first order logic

It is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog#Tu ... mpleteness

Turing-completeness means N-th order logic. Prolog may have a poor vocabulary, but it has the capability.

, the provability of first order logic is second order logic.

Oh, there we go - the same inductivist game all Mathematicians play with themselves,

What's the provability of N-th order logic?

Either you are playing the Axiom-to-Theorem game (Mathematics)
Or you are playing the Theorem-to-Axiom game (Reverse Mathematics)

Which one is it? The decision-space of your function is tiny (2 bits). The input-space of your function is all of the English language!

I am thinking you are playing the Theorem-to-Axiom game...

You ignored the important parts indicating that you are not interested in an honest dialogue.

[Skepdick]

You ignored the important parts indicating that you are not interested in an honest dialogue.

Pete. The return-type of your function is of zero interest or significance.

The implementation... I want the implementation.

I want you to fill in the blanks here: https://repl.it/repls/GiftedPassionateSlash

[PeteOlcott]

You ignored the important parts indicating that you are not interested in an honest dialogue.

Pete. The return-type of your function is of zero interest or significance.

The implementation... I want the implementation.

I want you to fill in the blanks here: https://repl.it/repls/GiftedPassionateSlash

Seems Trollish to me.

Does Prolog create a formal system entirely comprised of stipulated relations between
finite strings such that the satisfaction of these stipulated relations indicates True and
the satisfaction of the negation of these stipulated relations indicate False?
YES.

Does this prove that formal systems can be entirely comprised of stipulated relations
between finite strings?
YES.

Can a True(x) ever diverge from Provable(x) in any formal systems that are entirely
comprised of stipulated relations between finite strings and True(x) is defined as the
satisfaction of these stipulated relations?
NO.

[Skepdick]

Does Prolog create a formal system entirely comprised of stipulated relations between
finite strings such that the satisfaction of these stipulated relations indicates True and
the satisfaction of the negation of these stipulated relations indicate False?
YES.

No. Prolog does not do any of that. The programmer does that.
The programmer declares the operations that they expect the computer to perform in Prolog.

Does this prove that formal systems can be entirely comprised of stipulated relations
between finite strings?
YES.

This is a silly truism. That is the definition of a formal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

You still need to define the relations!

Can a True(x) ever diverge from Provable(x) in any formal systems that are entirely
comprised of stipulated relations between finite strings and True(x) is defined as the
satisfaction of these stipulated relations?
NO.

I guess then, what you are telling me is that Prolog is unable to parse the following sentence in its current, English form.

Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.

Because that is not a "relation of strings".
That IS a string. One string.

You still need to demonstrate you you turn ONE string into MULTIPLE strings.
Let me help you...

Code: Select all

["Conceptual", "truth", "is", "ONLY", "mutually", "interlocking", "semantic", "tautologies", "that", "can", "ALWAYS", "be", "represented", "as", "the", "satisfaction", "of", "stipulated", "relations", "between", "finite", "strings."]

Now for the interesting part. How do you derive the relationship between these strings?

In short: You are going to have to translate your English into Prolog...

[PeteOlcott]

Does this prove that formal systems can be entirely comprised of stipulated relations
between finite strings?
YES.

This is a silly truism. That is the definition of a formal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

You still need to define the relations!

If you agree that formal systems are entirely comprised of stipulated relations between finite
strings and that True(x) is always exactly the satisfaction of these stipulated relations then
you understand and agree with True(x) cannot possibly diverge from Provable(x).

[PeteOlcott]

You still need to demonstrate you you turn ONE string into MULTIPLE strings.

This is self-evident by the way that Prolog Facts and Rules are specified and evaluated.
You still seem far too disingenuous.

[Skepdick]

If you agree that formal systems are entirely comprised of stipulated relations between finite
strings

But I don't agree... so what next?

The typical example of this is polymorphic behaviour of functions.

[PeteOlcott]

If you agree that formal systems are entirely comprised of stipulated relations between finite
strings

But I don't agree... so what next?

Does this prove that formal systems can be entirely comprised of stipulated relations
between finite strings?
YES.

This is a silly truism. That is the definition of a formal system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

Since your above two quotes contradict each other in that you said
that you don't agree with what you said is a truism it would seem
that we are done talking because you proved to be a liar.

If it was a typo instead of a lie let me know.
I really can't understand the petty motivation for lying about these things.

[Eodnhoj7]

All words are defined in a knowledge ontology acyclic graph, thus no word is in the ontology is meaningless.

False, words as defined by an acyclic graph require an assumed starting point. Standard definition in a dictionary always has a circular nature.

[PeteOlcott]

False, words as defined by an acyclic graph require an assumed starting point. Standard definition in a dictionary always has a circular nature.

Did you know that you are using quotation incorrectly?
When you are responding to quoted words, your response is not supposed to be quoted.

This proves otherwise
http://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulat ... p_1952.pdf

There is a relation established from the finite string "bachelor" to the finite string "not married"

[Eodnhoj7]

False, words as defined by an acyclic graph require an assumed starting point. Standard definition in a dictionary always has a circular nature.

Did you know that you are using quotation incorrectly?
When you are responding to quoted words, your response is not supposed to be quoted.

Suppose to according to what....to who? Fallacy of authority. You are measuring according to an assumed context.

This proves otherwise
http://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulat ... p_1952.pdf

There is a relation established from the finite string "bachelor" to the finite string "not married"
And it is incomplete due to perpetual context recursion:

1. Bachelor is man who is not married = True
2. Bachelor is past state of man is who is married = True
3. Bachelor is part of the past identity of a married man = True

therefore

4. Bachelor is a man who is married = False
5. Bachelor is a single man = True and False

"man" is the connector of the string, and as such maintains both bachelor and non-bachelor as inherent states of identity, thus connecting the two. Principle of inherent middle resulting in all assumptions maintaining an assymetric irrational foundation through symmetric rational foundations.

Man as the connector, the "relation", or the "string" itself is the foundational assumption.

An example can be observed mathematically using a line which effectively is the platonic form of a string.

1 line = Man
1/2 line = Bachelor
1/2 line = non-bachelor

Each half is a line in and of itself, but shares the same nature of the connector (man) as purely assumed.

Your strings are weak and undefined. They rely on assumptions without defining assumptions. I already know the foundational assumptions I am arguing are both self-referencing and expansive to definition....they are triadic and exist as eachother:

Assumption as Axiomatic
Repetition as Recursion
Inversion as Isomorphic

My argument is both defined and undefined.

[PeteOlcott]

False, words as defined by an acyclic graph require an assumed starting point. Standard definition in a dictionary always has a circular nature.

Did you know that you are using quotation incorrectly?
When you are responding to quoted words, your response is not supposed to be quoted.

Suppose to according to what....to who? Fallacy of authority. You are measuring according to an assumed context.

This proves otherwise
http://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulat ... p_1952.pdf

There is a relation established from the finite string "bachelor" to the finite string "not married"
And it is incomplete due to perpetual context recursion:

1. Bachelor is man who is not married = True
2. Bachelor is past state of man is who is married = True
3. Bachelor is part of the past identity of a married man = True

therefore

4. Bachelor is a man who is married = False
5. Bachelor is a single man = True and False

"man" is the connector of the string, and as such maintains both bachelor and non-bachelor as inherent states of identity, thus connecting the two. Principle of inherent middle resulting in all assumptions maintaining an assymetric irrational foundation through symmetric rational foundations.

Man as the connector, the "relation", or the "string" itself is the foundational assumption.

An example can be observed mathematically using a line which effectively is the platonic form of a string.

1 line = Man
1/2 line = Bachelor
1/2 line = non-bachelor

Each half is a line in and of itself, but shares the same nature of the connector (man) as purely assumed.

Your strings are weak and undefined. They rely on assumptions without defining assumptions. I already know the foundational assumptions I am arguing are both self-referencing and expansive to definition....they are triadic and exist as eachother:

Assumption as Axiomatic
Repetition as Recursion
Inversion as Isomorphic

My argument is both defined and undefined.

You know that is Nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

Did you know that you are using quotation incorrectly?
When you are responding to quoted words, your response is not supposed to be quoted.

Suppose to according to what....to who? Fallacy of authority. You are measuring according to an assumed context.

This proves otherwise
http://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulat ... p_1952.pdf

There is a relation established from the finite string "bachelor" to the finite string "not married"
And it is incomplete due to perpetual context recursion:

1. Bachelor is man who is not married = True
2. Bachelor is past state of man is who is married = True
3. Bachelor is part of the past identity of a married man = True

therefore

4. Bachelor is a man who is married = False
5. Bachelor is a single man = True and False

"man" is the connector of the string, and as such maintains both bachelor and non-bachelor as inherent states of identity, thus connecting the two. Principle of inherent middle resulting in all assumptions maintaining an assymetric irrational foundation through symmetric rational foundations.

Man as the connector, the "relation", or the "string" itself is the foundational assumption.

An example can be observed mathematically using a line which effectively is the platonic form of a string.

1 line = Man
1/2 line = Bachelor
1/2 line = non-bachelor

Each half is a line in and of itself, but shares the same nature of the connector (man) as purely assumed.

Your strings are weak and undefined. They rely on assumptions without defining assumptions. I already know the foundational assumptions I am arguing are both self-referencing and expansive to definition....they are triadic and exist as eachother:

Assumption as Axiomatic
Repetition as Recursion
Inversion as Isomorphic

My argument is both defined and undefined.

You know that is Nonsense.

No it is how a string works in form and function. What you are posting is nonsense....what the hell does definition even mean without going into one string then another then another....