For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
From your very own wiki page.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:51 pm Languages that are used for building humans minds already exist.
One of them is called CycL. These guys never bothered to eliminate
paradox from their reprensentations so I am reformulating their work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL
the modern version is ..... a declarative language based on classical first-order logic
Hence one of the reasons that I have to reformulate it and cannot use it as it us.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:57 pmFrom your very own wiki page.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:51 pm Languages that are used for building humans minds already exist.
One of them is called CycL. These guys never bothered to eliminate
paradox from their reprensentations so I am reformulating their work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL
the modern version is ..... a declarative language based on classical first-order logic
You do understand that the problem you have formulated is equivalent to Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem problem, right?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:34 pm Hence one of the reasons that I have to reformulate it and cannot use it as it us.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF
Yes I know this and that is the reason why I have been always working on all three problems concurrently since 1997.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:42 pmYou do understand that the problem you have formulated is equivalent to Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem problem, right?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:34 pm Hence one of the reasons that I have to reformulate it and cannot use it as it us.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
Which is the halting problem.
Patent is a patent, fallacy of authority.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:59 pmhttps://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-l-olcottEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:25 amAssumption. What you have are patents... they give parents to back scrubbing devices and speciality toenail files as well.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:41 am
It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].
That is a quite stupid thing to say. You can see that they are software engineering patents.
False, all premises are assumed.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:17 pmYou can't point to a contradiction because there are none.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:25 amYour arguments contradict themselves by there own logic...PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:41 am
It is a correct refutation of [you are a clueless wonder that does not know jack shit].
But....whatever. You cannot have a formal system which defines everything when core undefined assumptions are its premises.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a premise and an axiom.
I am not arguing boolean, and you are analyzing in making that distinction. Analysis breaks a phenomenon into parts...period.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:06 pm(1) You are getting the analytic versus synthetic distinction incorrectly.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:44 am So fact as an axiom is determined by an analytic sentence,
this analytic sentence is true based upon the meaning of its words,
The meaning of words, however, require a connection to empirical reality.
That is the problem, your premises are just randomly cut portions of reality glued to together with scotch tape and glitter until some bastardized interpretation is produced...throw in a "ta-da" and a pat on the back and that sums up your system.
It's just made up. You cannot define reality without relying on a continuum, and formal system that is not subject to change cannot continue.
(2) The truth teller paradox is not Boolean.
I will refrain from responding until after you show that you know these things well enough.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:40 amI am not arguing boolean, and you are analyzing in making that distinction. Analysis breaks a phenomenon into parts...period.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:06 pm(1) You are getting the analytic versus synthetic distinction incorrectly.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:44 am So fact as an axiom is determined by an analytic sentence,
this analytic sentence is true based upon the meaning of its words,
The meaning of words, however, require a connection to empirical reality.
That is the problem, your premises are just randomly cut portions of reality glued to together with scotch tape and glitter until some bastardized interpretation is produced...throw in a "ta-da" and a pat on the back and that sums up your system.
It's just made up. You cannot define reality without relying on a continuum, and formal system that is not subject to change cannot continue.
(2) The truth teller paradox is not Boolean.
Philosophy has been working on this problem since - ever.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:14 pm Yes I know this and that is the reason why I have been always working on all three problems concurrently since 1997.
Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYSSkepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:04 pmPhilosophy has been working on this problem since - ever.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:14 pm Yes I know this and that is the reason why I have been always working on all three problems concurrently since 1997.
You are trying to define the Truth-type. Or rather, you have defined the truth Truth-type as True: String:X -> Boolean:Y and now you are trying to implement it/write its "proof".
From a statistical lens, what you are building is a Binary classifier, and you are attempting to define the classification rule.
There are infinitely many implementations.
There are infinitely many algorithms.
Infinitely many sets of classification rules to choose from.
Principle of equifinality applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifinality
There are better ways to be enjoying retirement age methinks.
Brilliant! You have made a testable claim. Now we can do some science!PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:56 pm Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.
Code: Select all
def is_true(string):
return False
def test():
pete_olcott_claim='''
Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.'''
return is_true(pete_olcott_claim) == True
if test():
print("Pete's algorithm works.")
else:
print("More work is needed.")
This is already fully operational in Prolog.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:01 pmIs the above statement true? How would your algorithm tell?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:56 pm Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.
The facts-rules dualism is EXACTLY the same as the code-data dualism.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:13 pm This is already fully operational in Prolog.
Prolog has two kinds of stipulated relations between finite strings: Facts and Rules.
True is whenever a query returns "Yes".
You are welcome to use any programming language of your choice. Prolog, C++, Invent a language - doesn't matter.Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.
(1) I made my point.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:15 pmThe facts-rules dualism is EXACTLY the same as the code-data dualism.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:13 pm This is already fully operational in Prolog.
Prolog has two kinds of stipulated relations between finite strings: Facts and Rules.
True is whenever a query returns "Yes".
Which I have been pointing out to you all along. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_data
Write the algorithm which determines that the statement you have made is true.
You are welcome to use any programming language of your choice. Prolog, C++, Invent a language - doesn't matter.
Conceptual truth is ONLY mutually interlocking semantic tautologies that can ALWAYS
be represented as the satisfaction of stipulated relations between finite strings.
Liar!PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:28 pm (1) I made my point.
(2) Prolog proves my point.
(3) Done