Page 3 of 9
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:22 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:01 pm
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.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:01 pm
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:29 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:22 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:01 pm
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.
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:01 pm
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:39 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:29 pm
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?
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:48 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:29 pm
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:19 am
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:29 pm
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
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:42 am
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:48 pm
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?
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:43 am
by Skepdick
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
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:44 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:42 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:48 pm
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
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:51 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:43 am
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
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:06 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:44 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:42 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:48 pm
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
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:11 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:51 pm
Formal languages generally make actual self-reference inexpressible.
Bullshit.
There. Expressed.
There. Expressed.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:20 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:06 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:44 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:42 am
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:23 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:20 pm
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:27 pm
by PeteOlcott
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:11 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:51 pm
Formal languages generally make actual self-reference inexpressible.
Bullshit.
There. Expressed.
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.
Re: Overcoming Quine's objection to the analytic / synthetic distinction
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:28 pm
by Skepdick
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:27 pm
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