For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Once you understand the halting problem proof refutation you will understand that it is unrelated to P=NPSkepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:21 pmBut you still haven't claimed your Million dollars for solving P=NP. Why?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:08 pm To the best of my current knowledge I have already refuted all of the halting problem proofs.
The ONLY meaning that conceptual words have ever had is their stipulated relation to other words.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:57 pmYes, and when the relation is incomplete the words mean nothing in themselves.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:45 pmNo words mean anything apart from heir relation to other words.
Once you solve the halting problem, you would understand that it's the gateway to solving P=NPPeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:17 pm Once you understand the halting problem proof refutation you will understand that it is unrelated to P=NP
Conceptual words expressed as finite strings acquire all of their meaning from theirSkepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:08 pmYou got this exactly backwards. Words mean absolutely nothing. Until they are grounded e.g interpreted by something or someone.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:45 pm No words mean anything apart from heir relation to other words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem
No, they do not.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:21 pm Conceptual words expressed as finite strings acquire all of their meaning from their
stipulated relations to other words expressed as finite strings.
That whole point utterly depends upon the provably false assumption that the halting problem has no effective solution.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:17 pmPete. I am demonstrating such high holistic understanding of what you are trying to do that for every 5-paragraph idea you explain I have 1 concise wiki link.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:15 pm I consider failing to provide full context an act of dishonesty. At least 90% of my
respondents on numerous forums have no interest what-so-ever in understanding
what I am saying and only focus on rebuttal.
50% of my respondents will focus on rebuttal even if they have to lie to do so.
If you want your idea to work - you have to make trade-offs. There is no such thing as free lunch.
If you want totality (decidability) - you lose recursion.
Take it or leave it. This universe doesn't care that this upsets you.
Context is nothing at all more than stipulated relations between finite strings.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:24 pmNo, they do not.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:21 pm Conceptual words expressed as finite strings acquire all of their meaning from their
stipulated relations to other words expressed as finite strings.
Words also acquire their meaning from the context in which they are being interpreted.
10 means one thing in a binary and another thing in decimal context.
It's not linguists. It's humans. English is implicit, not explicit.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:28 pm Context is nothing at all more than stipulated relations between finite strings.
I really believe that it is a horribly stupid idea that linguists have ever treated
context as a separate and distinct thing that can be excluded from the semantics
of a discourse.
The world can't wait to prove you wrong.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:24 pm That whole point utterly depends upon the provably false assumption that the halting problem has no effective solution.
I have proven otherwise and will publish this proof in a few months.
Sure. We initially assume both the river bank and the money bank.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:35 pmIt's not linguists. It's humans. English is implicit, not explicit.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:28 pm Context is nothing at all more than stipulated relations between finite strings.
I really believe that it is a horribly stupid idea that linguists have ever treated
context as a separate and distinct thing that can be excluded from the semantics
of a discourse.
I went to the bank today.
Is that the bank where people keep money, or the river bank?
It's an open problem in computational linguistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation
The world does not really have intention.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:36 pmThe world can't wait to prove you wrong.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:24 pm That whole point utterly depends upon the provably false assumption that the halting problem has no effective solution.
I have proven otherwise and will publish this proof in a few months.
Your context-disambiguator failed you right there.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:28 pmThe world does not really have intention.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:36 pmThe world can't wait to prove you wrong.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:24 pm That whole point utterly depends upon the provably false assumption that the halting problem has no effective solution.
I have proven otherwise and will publish this proof in a few months.
There exists people in the world such that these people anticipate refuting my halting problem proof refutation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:32 pmYour context-disambiguator failed you right there.
Things in the world with intention can't wait to prove you wrong.
Still failed in context.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:04 pmThere exists people in the world such that these people anticipate refuting my halting problem proof refutation.
You don't seem to understand what linguistic context is.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:50 pmStill failed in context.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:04 pmThere exists people in the world such that these people anticipate refuting my halting problem proof refutation.
There are certain types of people that anticipate refuting your halting problem proof refutation.