On 17/02/24 16:14, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>
>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>> actual world.
>>>
>>
>> No, there may be only one model that matches what we know of the
>> actual world, but logic isn't restricted to talking about the actual
>> world.
>>
>
> That some guy proposed possible worlds to cover hypothetical
> possibilities means that they have diverged from truth.

In the actual world, x is a shape made from two straight lines. x=3 is
inconsistent with the actual world since 3 is not a shape made from two
straight lines.

On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>>
>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>> actual world.
>>>>
>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>
>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of a
>> human mind.
>>
>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>
>
> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.

It is indirectly relevant.
The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.

This proves that expressions of language can be rejected as
semantically unsound thus the convention of not rejecting
semantically unsound expressions has no correct basis.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/17/2024 4:23 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 17/02/24 16:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 11:56 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 06:04, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that ENGLISH
>>>>>>>>> is a formal logic system, which just shows how ignorant you are
>>>>>>>>> of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>>>>>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>>>>>> as erroneous.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.
>>>>
>>>> Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.
>>>>
>>> You are the one who lacks knowledge. Logical formulas cannot be
>>> semantically unsound because they do not have semantics.
>>
>> In other words you are saying that A ∧ B is meaningless gibberish.
>
> Yes, that's the innovation of mathematics. x+y=4 is meaningless
> gibberish but you can still do something with it. If you apply
> mathematical rules to the sentences x=1 and x+y=4 you can get other
> meaningless gibberish like (x+y)^3=64 and y=3.
>
> "formal" comes from the root "form", meaning "appearance". You can
> manipulate mathematical expressions based on just their appearance. You
> do not have to know that x is the number of cows that Alice has and y is
> the number of cows that Joey has. It is still the case that (x+y)^3=64.
>
>> Using Montague grammar of natural language semantics the full semantics
>> of natural language can be directly referenced by formalized natural
>> language expressions.
>
> Montague grammar attempts to translate natural language into
> mathematics. For sentences already in mathematics there it is irrelevant.
>
>> That Tarski anchored his undefinability theorem in the formalized
>> Liar Paradox proves that some formal expressions are unsound:
>
> The Liar Paradox cannot be formalized.

Tarski did this proving that you are wrong.
x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x

This retains the self-contradictory nature of the Liar Paradox
yet does not include its infinitely recursive nature.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 18/02/24 02:47, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>
>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>
>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of
>>> a human mind.
>>>
>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>
>>
>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>
> It is indirectly relevant.
> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.

Whether we math can prove things about English is completely irrelevant
to whether there is a Turing machine that answers the halt status of all
Turing machines.

On 18/02/24 02:52, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 4:23 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 16:27, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 11:56 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 06:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And determining if such string of steps exists is not computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a misconception anchored in the belief that expressions
>>>>>>> of language that are semantically unsound must not be rejected
>>>>>>> as erroneous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no semantically unsound logical formulas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your lack of knowledge is not a rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>> You are the one who lacks knowledge. Logical formulas cannot be
>>>> semantically unsound because they do not have semantics.
>>>
>>> In other words you are saying that A ∧ B is meaningless gibberish.
>>
>> Yes, that's the innovation of mathematics. x+y=4 is meaningless
>> gibberish but you can still do something with it. If you apply
>> mathematical rules to the sentences x=1 and x+y=4 you can get other
>> meaningless gibberish like (x+y)^3=64 and y=3.
>>
>> "formal" comes from the root "form", meaning "appearance". You can
>> manipulate mathematical expressions based on just their appearance.
>> You do not have to know that x is the number of cows that Alice has
>> and y is the number of cows that Joey has. It is still the case that
>> (x+y)^3=64.
>>
>>> Using Montague grammar of natural language semantics the full semantics
>>> of natural language can be directly referenced by formalized natural
>>> language expressions.
>>
>> Montague grammar attempts to translate natural language into
>> mathematics. For sentences already in mathematics there it is irrelevant.
>>
>>> That Tarski anchored his undefinability theorem in the formalized
>>> Liar Paradox proves that some formal expressions are unsound:
>>
>> The Liar Paradox cannot be formalized.
>
> Tarski did this proving that you are wrong.
> x ∉ True if and only if p
> where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
>
> This retains the self-contradictory nature of the Liar Paradox
> yet does not include its infinitely recursive nature.
>
Tarski said that if it can be formalized, the system is inconsistent.
If the system is consistent, then it cannot be formalized.
Once again, you do not understand how proof by contradiction works.

On 2/17/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>
>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>
>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of
>>> a human mind.
>>>
>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>
>>
>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>
> It is indirectly relevant.
> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>
> This proves that expressions of language can be rejected as
> semantically unsound thus the convention of not rejecting
> semantically unsound expressions has no correct basis.
>

You are just showing that you don't really understand what you are
talking about, in particular here, what "Formal" actually means.

"Formalizing English" in this context means removing the ambquity of the
meaning of the words and the syntax. It doesn't say anything about
determining if a given sentence is actually a "True" sentence or even if
it is statement which has no truth value. It might be able to determine
SOME statements, but not all.

A "Formal Language" is not a "Formal Logic System" and that difference
seems to evade you.

On 2/18/2024 12:58 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 18/02/24 02:47, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>
>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of
>>>> a human mind.
>>>>
>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>
>> It is indirectly relevant.
>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
>> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>
> Whether we math can prove things about English is completely irrelevant
> to whether there is a Turing machine that answers the halt status of all
> Turing machines.
>

If math can proving things about English then math is expressive enough
that it can perform any analytical proof about anything. It is not
forced to ignore that an expression is self-contradictory because it
does not know what self-contradictory is.

On 2/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>
>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of
>>>> a human mind.
>>>>
>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>
>> It is indirectly relevant.
>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
>> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>>
>> This proves that expressions of language can be rejected as
>> semantically unsound thus the convention of not rejecting
>> semantically unsound expressions has no correct basis.
>>
>
> You are just showing that you don't really understand what you are
> talking about, in particular here, what "Formal" actually means.
>
> "Formalizing English" in this context means removing the ambquity of the
> meaning of the words and the syntax.

On 2/18/2024 11:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-18 15:51:30 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/18/2024 12:58 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 18/02/24 02:47, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>>> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
>>>> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>>>
>>> Whether we math can prove things about English is completely
>>> irrelevant to whether there is a Turing machine that answers the halt
>>> status of all Turing machines.
>>>
>>
>> If math can proving things about English then math is expressive enough
>> that it can perform any analytical proof about anything.
>
> If math can prove things about English like something about the lengths
> of words or nesting levels of subordiante clauses that does not mean
> that it can perform an analytical proof about anything.
>

On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-18 01:47:29 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the steps
>>>>>>>>> can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>
>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent of
>>>> a human mind.
>>>>
>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world works.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>
>> It is indirectly relevant.
>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>
> In a formal language every string either is in the language or is not.
> But people people have different opinions of whether e.g. "Our mission
> so to boldly go where no one has returned from." is syntactically
> correct. People also disagree what "I never gave no money" means.
> To formalize English means to replace it with something that looks
> more or less similar, e.g., COBOL.
>

On 2/18/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 12:58 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 18/02/24 02:47, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>> works.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>
>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
>>> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>>
>> Whether we math can prove things about English is completely
>> irrelevant to whether there is a Turing machine that answers the halt
>> status of all Turing machines.
>>
>
> If math can proving things about English then math is expressive enough
> that it can perform any analytical proof about anything. It is not
> forced to ignore that an expression is self-contradictory because it
> does not know what self-contradictory is.
>

On 2/18/24 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 11:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-18 15:51:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/18/2024 12:58 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/24 02:47, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>>>> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
>>>>> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>>>>
>>>> Whether we math can prove things about English is completely
>>>> irrelevant to whether there is a Turing machine that answers the
>>>> halt status of all Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If math can proving things about English then math is expressive enough
>>> that it can perform any analytical proof about anything.
>>
>> If math can prove things about English like something about the lengths
>> of words or nesting levels of subordiante clauses that does not mean
>> that it can perform an analytical proof about anything.
>>
>
> If math fully understands everything that can be expressed in English
> then math is expressive enough to reject self-contradictory expressions
> as not in the domain of any formal logic system.
>

On 2/18/24 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>> works.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>
>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>> This proves that semantics can be directly formalized in the formal
>>> system with no need to separate syntax from semantics.
>>>
>>> This proves that expressions of language can be rejected as
>>> semantically unsound thus the convention of not rejecting
>>> semantically unsound expressions has no correct basis.
>>>
>>
>> You are just showing that you don't really understand what you are
>> talking about, in particular here, what "Formal" actually means.
>>
>> "Formalizing English" in this context means removing the ambquity of
>> the meaning of the words and the syntax.
>
> Yes that is correct.
>
>> It doesn't say anything about determining if a given sentence is
>> actually a "True" sentence or even if it is statement which has no
>> truth value.
>
> Formalized English is as expressive as English thus can see
> and understand when an expression is self-contradictory.

On 2/18/24 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-18 01:47:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>> works.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>
>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>
>> In a formal language every string either is in the language or is not.
>> But people people have different opinions of whether e.g. "Our mission
>> so to boldly go where no one has returned from." is syntactically
>> correct. People also disagree what "I never gave no money" means.
>> To formalize English means to replace it with something that looks
>> more or less similar, e.g., COBOL.
>>
>
> It is just like Richard said:
> On 2/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > "Formalizing English" in this context means removing the
> > ambquity of the meaning of the words and the syntax.
>
>

On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/24 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-18 01:47:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question, or is Tarski correct to say it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>>
>>> In a formal language every string either is in the language or is not.
>>> But people people have different opinions of whether e.g. "Our mission
>>> so to boldly go where no one has returned from." is syntactically
>>> correct. People also disagree what "I never gave no money" means.
>>> To formalize English means to replace it with something that looks
>>> more or less similar, e.g., COBOL.
>>>
>>
>> It is just like Richard said:
>> On 2/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > "Formalizing English" in this context means removing the
>>  > ambquity of the meaning of the words and the syntax.
>>
>>
>
> And, as you have described, it means attaching a qualifying tag to every
> word (or at least every word that needs one), so it no longer reads like
> English.

On 2/18/24 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/24 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-18 01:47:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>>>
>>>> In a formal language every string either is in the language or is not.
>>>> But people people have different opinions of whether e.g. "Our mission
>>>> so to boldly go where no one has returned from." is syntactically
>>>> correct. People also disagree what "I never gave no money" means.
>>>> To formalize English means to replace it with something that looks
>>>> more or less similar, e.g., COBOL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is just like Richard said:
>>> On 2/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > "Formalizing English" in this context means removing the
>>>  > ambquity of the meaning of the words and the syntax.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And, as you have described, it means attaching a qualifying tag to
>> every word (or at least every word that needs one), so it no longer
>> reads like English.
>
> You make sure to change the subject from the point that
> I make when I make my point. *That is dishonest*

On 18/02/24 23:36, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/24 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2024 11:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-18 01:47:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/17/2024 4:24 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/24 16:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 06:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 05:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 10:17 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 04:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:31 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/02/24 02:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2024 7:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16/02/24 19:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Tarski concluded that no truth predicate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that correctly answers this question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this sentence: "this sentence is not true" true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is correct. It can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to Tarski or Gödel that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain of truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicates and formal proofs does not include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using this same reasoning we can say math is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there is no square-root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ONLY when we restrict the domain of math functions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to numbers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we understand that there is not supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any square
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> root of an actual banana.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is solvable on some restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains. You are invited to find some domains where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is solvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you understand how and why Tarski is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You dishonestly avoided the question. I repeat the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: Can a truth predicate exist that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers the question, or is Tarski correct to say it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A truth predicate exists in the domain of truth bearers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski was too stupid to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you know that a COMPUTABLE truth predicate exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see the details of how this all works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed to these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown that you just don't have the understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this sort of material, after all, you have claimed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ENGLISH is a formal logic system, which just shows how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant you are of what things actually mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason that any analytic expression of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is true is that it is semantically linked through a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or infinite sequence of steps to the semantic meanings that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the great innovation of mathematics is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> steps can be formal - symbolic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if x+1=y is true, then x+2=y+1 is also true. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter what x and y represent. x+2=y+1 is still true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Semantic entailment can be and has been formalized for many
>>>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A semantically entails B if B is true in all models where A is
>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not what I mean. There is one model of the
>>>>>>>>> actual world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathematics does not care about the actual world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the only possible way to create the functional equivalent
>>>>>>> of a human mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cyc (pronounced /ˈsaɪk/ SYKE) is a long-term artificial intelligence
>>>>>>> project that aims to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge
>>>>>>> base that spans the basic concepts and rules about how the world
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is irrelevant to the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is indirectly relevant.
>>>>> The Cyc project proves that English can be mathematically formalized.
>>>>
>>>> In a formal language every string either is in the language or is not.
>>>> But people people have different opinions of whether e.g. "Our mission
>>>> so to boldly go where no one has returned from." is syntactically
>>>> correct. People also disagree what "I never gave no money" means.
>>>> To formalize English means to replace it with something that looks
>>>> more or less similar, e.g., COBOL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is just like Richard said:
>>> On 2/18/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > "Formalizing English" in this context means removing the
>>>  > ambquity of the meaning of the words and the syntax.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And, as you have described, it means attaching a qualifying tag to
>> every word (or at least every word that needs one), so it no longer
>> reads like English.
>
> You make sure to change the subject from the point that
> I make when I make my point. *That is dishonest*
>
> There are formal systems that can recognize and reject
> epistemological antinomies. PA is not one of them.
>