Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Eodnhoj7]

The body of analytic knowledge is delineated by:
Every (formal or natural language) sentence that can be verified as
completely true entirely based on its meaning is an analytic sentence.

still a problem based on its meaning (context) still requires another set of meaning/context, etc. and you are left with an assumed meaning/context that effectively is undefined.

Prolog can perfectly represent a subset of that as Facts and Rules.

The facts as rules and rules as facts, as both static and dynamic properties of definition was addressed already quite a few posts ago.

If Prolog was extended to directly encode higher order logic in its
Facts and Rules then the entire body of conceptual knowledge
could be encoded as Prolog facts and Rules.

Meaning (semantics) and linguistic discourse context are not the same thing at all.
You are confusing yourself by using terminology in inconsistent ways.

Contexted is the assumed localization of any phenomenon within reality (in this case computer logic), as being composed of a specific number of variables isolated within a specific set of limits.

We observe a portion of reality, apply limits to it, and a context is created. It observes the seperstion of the internal phenomena within the context from the outer phenomenon. So you can define a group of semantics as having x properties, but thus group as a context exists as a part of another context with this context following the same behavior.

It is like me saying letters, then words, then synonyms, then nouns, then English, then old English, then Latin German, etc.

Each context is required for the other to occur and eventually one context is left as undefined. This applies to all phenomenon.

[Skepdick]

If coding standards prevent infinite loops then infinite loops will
not occur in any programs conforming to these programming standards.

Coding standards do prevent infinite loops. I already told you that.
Total functional programming

Coding standards are also a form of Linguistic prescription.
You are trying to dictate to me what I am allowed, or not allowed to say. Fuck you?

Since you ignored that part, you are disingenuous.

Since I didn't ignore it, you are a liar.

I asked you this question 9 days ago.

It seems to me that in your pursuit for disambiguation, you are really after a formal system with normalisation.

A lambda calculus system with the normalisation property can be viewed as a programming language with the property that every program terminates. Although this is a very useful property, it has a drawback: a programming language with the normalisation property cannot be Turing complete.

So back to the question of giving up expressive power. If you are asking me to give up Turing completeness, what are you offering in return?

This is a negotiation, you see? When you tell me what you are selling, in exchange for me giving up Turing completeness, THEN I get to decide whether I want to buy whatever it is that you are selling.

I get to choose whether to buy your product or not.

[PeteOlcott]

If coding standards prevent infinite loops then infinite loops will
not occur in any programs conforming to these programming standards.

Coding standards do prevent infinite loops. I already told you that.
Total functional programming

Coding standards are also a form of Linguistic prescription.

Since you ignored that part, you are disingenuous.

Since I didn't ignore it, you are a liar.

I asked you this question 9 days ago.

It seems to me that in your pursuit for disambiguation, you are really after a formal system with normalisation.

A lambda calculus system with the normalisation property can be viewed as a programming language with the property that every program terminates. Although this is a very useful property, it has a drawback: a programming language with the normalisation property cannot be Turing complete.

So back to the question of giving up expressive power. If you are asking me to give up Turing completeness, what are you offering in return?

Once structured programming eliminated spaghetti code we had to give up spaghetti code programming
yet what remained was sufficiently expressive to express anything that need be expressed.

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

[Skepdick]

Once structured programming eliminated spaghetti code we had to give up spaghetti code programming
yet what remained was sufficiently expressive to express anything that need be expressed.

So you gave up self-reference? Liar!

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

Recursion is in the set of my conceptual knowledge. How do I express recursion with a directed acyclic graph?

[PeteOlcott]

Once structured programming eliminated spaghetti code we had to give up spaghetti code programming
yet what remained was sufficiently expressive to express anything that need be expressed.

So you gave up self-reference? Liar!

What does structured programming have to do with self-reference?

[Skepdick]

What does structured programming have to do with self-reference?

Self-reference is recursion!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

Self-reference occurs in natural or formal languages when a sentence, idea or formula refers to itself. The reference may be expressed either directly—through some intermediate sentence or formula—or by means of some encoding. In philosophy, it also refers to the ability of a subject to speak of or refer to itself, that is, to have the kind of thought expressed by the first person nominative singular pronoun "I" in English.

Self-reference is studied and has applications in mathematics, philosophy, computer programming, and linguistics. Self-referential statements are sometimes paradoxical, and can also be considered recursive.

[PeteOlcott]

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

Recursion is in the set of my conceptual knowledge. How do I express recursion with a directed acyclic graph?

BNF always specifies a tree structure, hence an acyclic graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus%E2%80%93Naur_form

[Skepdick]

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

Recursion is in the set of my conceptual knowledge. How do I express recursion with a directed acyclic graph?

BNF always specifies a tree structure, hence an acyclic graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus%E2%80%93Naur_form

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

BNF is Type 2.

So I ask again. Why are you lying about having given up self-reference?

Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott

I

I have no idea

I have it simplified down to this now
I want to make the formal system itself as simple as possible.
(...)
I transformed the above into objects of thought are stipulated relations between objects of thought.

[PeteOlcott]

Recursion is in the set of my conceptual knowledge. How do I express recursion with a directed acyclic graph?

BNF always specifies a tree structure, hence an acyclic graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus%E2%80%93Naur_form

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

BNF is Type 2.

So I ask again. Why are you lying about having given up self-reference?

BNF is a type of type 2 language.
BNF does not have self reference.
Type 2 languages have self-reference.

Therefore BNF has self-reference?

[Skepdick]

X is a type of Y.
X does not have self reference.
Y has self-reference.

Therefore X has self-reference?

We are talking about your coding standard.

Does your coding standard allow self-reference. Yes? No? Maybe? Sometimes?

If Y is allowed to have self-reference, why is X not allowed to have self-reference?

[PeteOlcott]

X is a type of Y.
X does not have self reference.
Y has self-reference.

Therefore X has self-reference?

We are talking about your coding standard.

Does your coding standard allow self-reference. Yes? No? Maybe? Sometimes?

If Y is allowed to have self-reference, why is X not allowed to have self-reference?

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

[Skepdick]

BNF is a type of type 2 language.
BNF does not have self reference.
Type 2 languages have self-reference.

Therefore BNF has self-reference?

[Skepdick]

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

So you reject recursion! And more specifically - you reject Ackermann functions, but you accept Walther recursion.

That's what I fucking said.

If it can be expressed as an acyclic graph then it means the loop can be unrolled at compile time.

[PeteOlcott]

BNF is a type of type 2 language.
BNF does not have self reference.
Type 2 languages have self-reference.

Therefore BNF has self-reference?

Which forms a contradiction thus is impossibly true.

[PeteOlcott]

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

So you reject recursion!

No. I never said that. BNF stipulates recursion.