On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "What's a GUID? Oh, that's not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat's CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual 'dog and pony show'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you'll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it's dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the "great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience: Yeah, it's an intellectual-property scam I've had run on me several times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what's true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to "bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to be "still rock and roll to you", it's 2023 for everybody and we really can't do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don't understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow's 'claim' is really pretty interesting compared to this 'crackpot' garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining 'piss-poor crackpots', pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > > "We don't mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > > "That's a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say, we're just not 'letting on'."
> > > > > > > > > > "That's actually one of the meanings of the word 'crackpot'. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > > Like, I didn't make that up.
> > > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term 'crackpot' is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > > you are 'putting one over' on people with material such as we see here.
> > > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote 'em".
> > > > > > "You know what... maybe there's some kind of outside chance that's true... and maybe not."
> > > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > > Guess so!
> > Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.
> It's just not possible to "respect" it, even as malicious hoaxing.