Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction

[Skepdick]

As it turns out to actually be the process for defining an optimal knowledge ontology is very similar to database normalization.
It accomplishes the same end goals as normalization yet is an enormously more rigorous process.

Rigor doesn't add anything to representation. Is just error-checking/rule enforcement.

I was not going to even begin to try to explain how an optimal knowledge ontology is defined before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.

Cool. Come back when you understand it.

[PeteOlcott]

As it turns out to actually be the process for defining an optimal knowledge ontology is very similar to database normalization.
It accomplishes the same end goals as normalization yet is an enormously more rigorous process.

Rigor doesn't add anything to representation. Is just error-checking/rule enforcement.

I was not going to even begin to try to explain how an optimal knowledge ontology is defined before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.

Cool. Come back when you understand it.

I meant when you understood it knucklehead.

[Skepdick]

I meant when you understood it knucklehead.

If you "understand it" then why can't you write the damn code already?

Are you having trouble expressing your idea? Perhaps the expression problem is getting in your way?

[PeteOlcott]

I meant when you understood it knucklehead.

If you "understand it" then why can't you write the damn code already?

Are you having trouble expressing your idea? Perhaps the expression problem is getting in your way?

before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.

[PeteOlcott]

I meant when you understood it knucklehead.

If you "understand it" then why can't you write the damn code already?

Are you having trouble expressing your idea? Perhaps the expression problem is getting in your way?

The code would be code for the universal language of all thought.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

[Skepdick]

before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.

Yes, Pete. I understand it. It's just data modeling. In order to model your data - you need to understand the use-case.

In order to understand the use-case - you need to ask and answer the questions: What are you trying to achieve? What problem are you trying to solve? Does your proposed solution address the problem?

[Skepdick]

The code would be code for the universal language of all thought.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

What makes your language "more universal" than Prolog, LISP or any other homoiconic language?

For starters - your "universal language" is not even self-hosting - it depends on yacc.

Have you heard of the NuPRL program, whose motto is "proofs as programs - theories as sytems"?

http://www.nuprl.org/Intro/intro.html

[PeteOlcott]

before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.

Yes, Pete. I understand it. It's just data modeling. In order to model your data - you need to understand the use-case.

In order to understand the use-case - you need to ask and answer the questions: What are you trying to achieve? What problem are you trying to solve? Does your proposed solution address the problem?

human(bill).
marital_status(bill, single).
adult(bill).
sex(bill, male).
bachelor(X) :- human(X), marital_status(X, single), sex(X, male), adult(X).

?- bachelor(bill).

The above tested Prolog code indicates that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates can be defined to implement a tiny fraction of the body of analytical knowledge entirely on the basis of stipulated relations between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

This also proves beyond all doubt that the semantic meaning of the English word: "bachelor" can be specified with an acyclic structure. These finite strings would be defined within a hierarchy thus associated with a single unique sense meaning.

Marriage->Bachelor
College_Degree->Bachelor

[PeteOlcott]

The code would be code for the universal language of all thought.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

What makes your language "more universal" than Prolog, LISP or any other homoiconic language?

For starters - your "universal language" is not even self-hosting - it depends on yacc.

Have you heard of the NuPRL program, whose motto is "proofs as programs - theories as sytems"?

http://www.nuprl.org/Intro/intro.html

Formal languages generally make actual self-reference inexpressible:
"This sentence is not true." --------- LP := ~True(LP)
"This sentence is not provable." ---- G := ~Provable(LP)

When self-reference can be directly formalized the error becomes obvious:
http://www.liarparadox.org/Prolog_Detec ... erence.pdf

[Skepdick]

before the gist of the idea of a knowledge ontology itself is first sufficiently understood.

Yes, Pete. I understand it. It's just data modeling. In order to model your data - you need to understand the use-case.

In order to understand the use-case - you need to ask and answer the questions: What are you trying to achieve? What problem are you trying to solve? Does your proposed solution address the problem?

human(bill).
marital_status(bill, single).
adult(bill).
sex(bill, male).
bachelor(X) :- human(X), marital_status(X, single), sex(X, male), adult(X).

?- bachelor(bill).

The above tested Prolog code indicates that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates can be defined to implement a tiny fraction of the body of analytical knowledge entirely on the basis of stipulated relations between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

This also proves beyond all doubt that the semantic meaning of the English word: "bachelor" can be specified with an acyclic structure. These finite strings would be defined within a hierarchy thus associated with a single unique sense meaning.

Marriage->Bachelor
College_Degree->Bachelor

1. Have you even heard of the sensitivity conjecture?
2. I broke your code: https://swish.swi-prolog.org/p/rXjzILaR.pl
3. Could you define "single" as a relation of strings?
4. Why are all of these shenanigans necessary?

Why not just

Code: Select all

bachelor(bill).
?- bachelor(bill).
true

[Skepdick]

Formal languages generally make actual self-reference inexpressible.

Bullshit.

Code: Select all

self = lambda n=0: self(n+1)

There. Expressed.

Code: Select all

def self(n=0):
  return self(n+1)

There. Expressed.

[PeteOlcott]

Yes, Pete. I understand it. It's just data modeling. In order to model your data - you need to understand the use-case.

In order to understand the use-case - you need to ask and answer the questions: What are you trying to achieve? What problem are you trying to solve? Does your proposed solution address the problem?

human(bill).
marital_status(bill, single).
adult(bill).
sex(bill, male).
bachelor(X) :- human(X), marital_status(X, single), sex(X, male), adult(X).

?- bachelor(bill).

The above tested Prolog code indicates that Rudolf Carnap / Richard Montague meaning postulates can be defined to implement a tiny fraction of the body of analytical knowledge entirely on the basis of stipulated relations between otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

This also proves beyond all doubt that the semantic meaning of the English word: "bachelor" can be specified with an acyclic structure. These finite strings would be defined within a hierarchy thus associated with a single unique sense meaning.

Marriage->Bachelor
College_Degree->Bachelor

1. Have you even heard of the sensitivity conjecture?
2. I broke your code: https://swish.swi-prolog.org/p/rXjzILaR.plc
3. Could you define "single" as a relation of strings?
4. Why are all of these shenanigans necessary?

Why not just

Code: Select all

bachelor(bill).
?- bachelor(bill).
true

I have proved that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string: "bachelor" can have its semantic meaning defined in terms of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings without requiring the cycles that this summation of Quine suggested would be required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

Instead of acknowledging that I am correct you always seem to nitpick at one extraneous point or another.

[Skepdick]

I have proved that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string: "bachelor" can have its semantic meaning defined in terms of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings without requiring the cycles that this summation of Quine suggested would be required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogma ... ircularity

Instead of acknowledging that I am correct you always seem to nitpick at one extraneous point or another.

How can I tell you that you are correct when i am trying to get it through your thick skull that you are wrong!

All you are saying is that the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "True" can simply be defined by the otherwise totally meaningless finite string "False". So instead of having one meaningless string , now you have two meaningless strings. But why stop there? If you can have two meaningless strings, why not infinitely many?

Congratulations. You have re-invented meaningless.

[PeteOlcott]

Formal languages generally make actual self-reference inexpressible.

Bullshit.

Code: Select all

self = lambda n=0: self(n+1)

There. Expressed.

Code: Select all

def self(n=0):
  return self(n+1)

There. Expressed.

If that does not terminate then it proves my same point.
If it does terminate then it does not encode the infinite recursion that I am referring to.

[Skepdick]

If that does not terminate then it proves my same point.
If it does terminate then it does not encode the infinite recursion that I am referring to.

Pete. it doesn't need to terminate.

We are talking about grammatically correct EXPRESSION.
We are NOT talking about EVALUATION.

Different things. See?

It's called lazy evaluation