Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[PeteOlcott]

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....

Here is the documentation for a fully operational system:
https://www.cyc.com/documentation/ontologists-handbook/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6009 ... s-to-work/

[Eodnhoj7]

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....

Here is the documentation for a fully operational system:
https://www.cyc.com/documentation/ontologists-handbook/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6009 ... s-to-work/

No, what you fail to understand is the context.

The basic line, the foundation of definition, is the universal string that is not limited to computer programming.

It is the origin of basic measurement, evidenced by the projective nature of time individuating reality itself. Applying the line, and ratios of the line, as having inherent identity properties is not only necessary but axiomatic considering it's original form.

You cannot create a completely defined system without leading to an underlying paradox that "definition" is assumed.

[PeteOlcott]

You cannot create a completely defined system without leading to an underlying paradox that "definition" is assumed.

It is self-evident that concepts exist.
There is no paradox when these concepts are encoded in language.

[Eodnhoj7]

You cannot create a completely defined system without leading to an underlying paradox that "definition" is assumed.

It is self-evident that concepts exist.
There is no paradox when these concepts are encoded in language.

Actually there is because the language itself becomes a context thus for every statement I make, including this one, it is always true and false.

[PeteOlcott]

You cannot create a completely defined system without leading to an underlying paradox that "definition" is assumed.

It is self-evident that concepts exist.
There is no paradox when these concepts are encoded in language.

Actually there is because the language itself becomes a context thus for every statement I make, including this one, it is always true and false.

No, not, at all, that is simply not the way that it works.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is self-evident that concepts exist.
There is no paradox when these concepts are encoded in language.

Actually there is because the language itself becomes a context thus for every statement I make, including this one, it is always true and false.

No, not, at all, that is simply not the way that it works.

Provide an argument as to why relative to what context...dont do the "no because I said so" bullshit...

[PeteOlcott]

Actually there is because the language itself becomes a context thus for every statement I make, including this one, it is always true and false.

No, not, at all, that is simply not the way that it works.

Provide an argument as to why relative to what context...dont do the "no because I said so" bullshit...

You apparently lack the capacity to understand these things.
The Prolog system of stipulated relations between finite strings already proves my point.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, not, at all, that is simply not the way that it works.

Provide an argument as to why relative to what context...dont do the "no because I said so" bullshit...

You apparently lack the capacity to understand these things.
The Prolog system of stipulated relations between finite strings already proves my point.

Prolog is a context that approximates reality through a recursive effect initiated by the individual(s) who developed it...try harder.

[Skepdick]

The Prolog system of stipulated relations between finite strings already proves my point.

The fact that Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops (e.g non-halting behaviour) disproves your point.

The finiteness of your strings is not the problem.
The number of relations between your strings is the problem.

It's (at least) a three-valued logic.

Provable.
Unprovable.
(Please wait)

What you need to be doing if you want to be taken seriously is:
1. Prove the totality of your system.

But as Donald Knuth points out, that's not enough. "I have only proven it correct, not tested it".

2. Demonstrate the Tractability of your system.

You are trying to get away with just No.1. Like ever lazy theoretician.

[PeteOlcott]

Provide an argument as to why relative to what context...dont do the "no because I said so" bullshit...

You apparently lack the capacity to understand these things.
The Prolog system of stipulated relations between finite strings already proves my point.

Prolog is a context that approximates reality through a recursive effect initiated by the individual(s) who developed it...try harder.

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.

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

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.

[PeteOlcott]

The Prolog system of stipulated relations between finite strings already proves my point.

The fact that Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops (e.g non-halting behaviour) disproves your point.

The finiteness of your strings is not the problem.
The number of relations between your strings is the problem.

It's (at least) a three-valued logic.

Provable.
Unprovable.
(Please wait)

I do not believe that Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops.
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... rs_check/2
If Prolog would otherwise be susceptible to infinite loops coding standards can prevent this.

Provable = True.
Refutable = False
else gibberish.

[Eodnhoj7]

You apparently lack the capacity to understand these things.
The Prolog system of stipulated relations between finite strings already proves my point.

Prolog is a context that approximates reality through a recursive effect initiated by the individual(s) who developed it...try harder.

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.

[Skepdick]

I do not believe that Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops.

If Prolog is Turing-complete, then it's susceptible to infinite loops.
If Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops, then Pete Olcott is a Liar.

Is Prolog Turing-complete? Yes

Therefore Pete Olcott is a liar.

[PeteOlcott]

I do not believe that Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops.

If Prolog is Turing-complete, then it's susceptible to infinite loops.
If Prolog is susceptible to infinite loops, then Pete Olcott is a Liar.

Is Prolog Turing-complete? Yes

Therefore Pete Olcott is a liar.

If coding standards prevent infinite loops then infinite loops will
not occur in any programs conforming to these programming standards.
Since you ignored that part, you are disingenuous.

[PeteOlcott]

Prolog is a context that approximates reality through a recursive effect initiated by the individual(s) who developed it...try harder.

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.