Discussion:
True(X) and ~Provable(X) is Impossible (02) (semantic subatomic compositionality.)
(too old to reply)
Pete Olcott
2018-02-10 17:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That {Cats are Animals}  formally: "Cats ⊆
Animals" is a "given" Analytical Fact.
Just for laughs I observe that not all cats are animals.
I have several terra-cotta cats around the house and one
little bronze one (of Egyptian ilk).
More seriously - I think this kind of flaw is involved in
EVERY alleged "analytic fact" (excluding the mathematical
sort if you are inclined to include it).
In the formal representational system every unique individual concept
has its own 128-bit GUID so there would be no ambiguity between a {cat}
and a {representation} of a {cat}.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/ontologists-handbook/writing-efficient-cycl/cycl-representation-choices/
What then of cats-of-nine-tails?

Only 128-bits for all concepts???
If you are the same guy that I have spoken with on sci.lang
you would of course be aware of the principle of compositionality.
128 bits is plenty enough for the entire set of semantic atoms.
Yes - I have commented on your work in sci.lang as well as
here.
Anyway you said all concepts not all atoms.
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.

A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.

This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.

Copyright 2016, 2017, 2018 Pete Olcott
Natural languages are not compositional so your definitions make
no linguistic sense.
--
*∀X True(X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ Axioms Provable(Γ, X) *
DKleinecke
2018-02-10 19:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.
A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.
This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.
This makes no sense at all.

I believe there are an infinite number of formal language
relations. The only way to avoid this would be to outlaw
recursion. I don't know your definition of "formal
language relation" but I assume it assumes recursion.

An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
Pete Olcott
2018-02-10 22:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Pete Olcott
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.
A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.
This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.
This makes no sense at all.
I believe there are an infinite number of formal language
relations. The only way to avoid this would be to outlaw
recursion. I don't know your definition of "formal
language relation" but I assume it assumes recursion.
No I do not mean recursion. By relation I mean the predicates
of predicate logic and anything comparable in any other language.

"5 > 3" "FatherOf(Pete, John)" et cetera.
Post by DKleinecke
An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
I have shown that every page of every book that could ever be
written in any existing language or any other language that
could ever possibly be devised would be specified in a book with
2 ^ 134640000 pages, so even omniscience is finite.
--
*∀X True(X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ Axioms Provable(Γ, X) *
DKleinecke
2018-02-11 02:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Pete Olcott
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.
A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.
This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.
This makes no sense at all.
I believe there are an infinite number of formal language
relations. The only way to avoid this would be to outlaw
recursion. I don't know your definition of "formal
language relation" but I assume it assumes recursion.
No I do not mean recursion. By relation I mean the predicates
of predicate logic and anything comparable in any other language.
"5 > 3" "FatherOf(Pete, John)" et cetera.
Post by DKleinecke
An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
I have shown that every page of every book that could ever be
written in any existing language or any other language that
could ever possibly be devised would be specified in a book with
2 ^ 134640000 pages, so even omniscience is finite.
Please don't cross-post your answers to me to sci.lang unless
they have to do with natural language. I replied to you
adequately on comp.theory.
Pete Olcott
2018-02-11 04:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Pete Olcott
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.
A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.
This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.
This makes no sense at all.
I believe there are an infinite number of formal language
relations. The only way to avoid this would be to outlaw
recursion. I don't know your definition of "formal
language relation" but I assume it assumes recursion.
No I do not mean recursion. By relation I mean the predicates
of predicate logic and anything comparable in any other language.
"5 > 3" "FatherOf(Pete, John)" et cetera.
Post by DKleinecke
An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
I have shown that every page of every book that could ever be
written in any existing language or any other language that
could ever possibly be devised would be specified in a book with
2 ^ 134640000 pages, so even omniscience is finite.
But you were suggesting 128 bits for all concepts. That's
In the formal representational system every unique
individual concept has its own 128-bit GUID so there
would be no ambiguity between a {cat} and a
{representation} of a {cat}.
That can be true only if there are at most 2^128 unique
individual concepts.
The number of concepts that exist is equal to the number of words
that exist, otherwise there would be concepts that could not be expressed.
--
*∀X True(X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ Axioms Provable(Γ, X) *
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-11 05:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by DKleinecke
An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
I have shown that every page of every book that could ever be
written in any existing language or any other language that
could ever possibly be devised would be specified in a book with
2 ^ 134640000 pages, so even omniscience is finite.
But you were suggesting 128 bits for all concepts. That's
In the formal representational system every unique
individual concept has its own 128-bit GUID so there
would be no ambiguity between a {cat} and a
{representation} of a {cat}.
That can be true only if there are at most 2^128 unique
individual concepts.
The number of concepts that exist is equal to the number of words
that exist, otherwise there would be concepts that could not be expressed
How absurd. First of all, "word" cannot be defined in such a way as to be
applicable in all languages. Secondly, concepts do not need to be restricted
to expression by a single word (in e.g. English). Thirdly, there is no upper
limit on the number of possible different words.
DKleinecke
2018-02-11 06:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by DKleinecke
An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
I have shown that every page of every book that could ever be
written in any existing language or any other language that
could ever possibly be devised would be specified in a book with
2 ^ 134640000 pages, so even omniscience is finite.
But you were suggesting 128 bits for all concepts. That's
In the formal representational system every unique
individual concept has its own 128-bit GUID so there
would be no ambiguity between a {cat} and a
{representation} of a {cat}.
That can be true only if there are at most 2^128 unique
individual concepts.
The number of concepts that exist is equal to the number of words
that exist, otherwise there would be concepts that could not be expressed
How absurd. First of all, "word" cannot be defined in such a way as to be
applicable in all languages. Secondly, concepts do not need to be restricted
to expression by a single word (in e.g. English). Thirdly, there is no upper
limit on the number of possible different words.
I just gave him a poorer version of your answer over on
comp.theory.
Pete Olcott
2018-02-11 06:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by Pete Olcott
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Pete Olcott
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All (natural and formal language) concepts are comprised of semantic atoms.
A semantic atom is a single formal language Relation.
A semantic sub atomic particle is the constituent parts of this single formal language Relation.
This is an elaboration of my semantic subatomic compositionality.
Ideas are expressed more succinctly.
This makes no sense at all.
I believe there are an infinite number of formal language
relations. The only way to avoid this would be to outlaw
recursion. I don't know your definition of "formal
language relation" but I assume it assumes recursion.
No I do not mean recursion. By relation I mean the predicates
of predicate logic and anything comparable in any other language.
"5 > 3" "FatherOf(Pete, John)" et cetera.
Post by DKleinecke
An infinite number cannot, of course, be described with
128 bits.
I have shown that every page of every book that could ever be
written in any existing language or any other language that
could ever possibly be devised would be specified in a book with
2 ^ 134640000 pages, so even omniscience is finite.
But you were suggesting 128 bits for all concepts. That's
In the formal representational system every unique
individual concept has its own 128-bit GUID so there
would be no ambiguity between a {cat} and a
{representation} of a {cat}.
That can be true only if there are at most 2^128 unique
individual concepts.
The number of concepts that exist is equal to the number of words
that exist, otherwise there would be concepts that could not be expressed.
You can't possibly mean that. There are many concepts that
require multiple words to express.
Yes Frege's principle of compositionality applies.
These concepts are semantic atoms.
--
*∀X True(X) ↔ ∃Γ ⊆ Axioms Provable(Γ, X) *
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2018-02-11 06:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
That {Cats are Animals}  formally: "Cats ⊆
Animals" is a "given" Analytical Fact.
Just for laughs I observe that not all cats are animals.
I have several terra-cotta cats around the house and one
little bronze one (of Egyptian ilk).
More seriously - I think this kind of flaw is involved in
EVERY alleged "analytic fact" (excluding the mathematical
sort if you are inclined to include it).
In the formal representational system every unique individual concept
has its own 128-bit GUID so there would be no ambiguity between a {cat}
and a {representation} of a {cat}.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/ontologists-handbook/writing-efficient-cycl/cycl-representation-choices/
What then of cats-of-nine-tails?
http://youtu.be/j_QLzthSkfM
Only 128-bits for all concepts???
If you are the same guy that I have spoken with on sci.lang
you would of course be aware of the principle of compositionality.
128 bits is plenty enough for the entire set of semantic atoms.
Yes - I have commented on your work in sci.lang as well as
here.
Anyway you said all concepts not all atoms.
All semantic atoms are comprised of semantic subatomic particles.
All your base are belong to us.
Loading...