Discussion:
What are Semantic Atoms ???
Add Reply
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-11 12:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.

...sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.
Peter T. Daniels
2016-07-11 13:15:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
...sentences of the form: " a has the property φ ", " b bears the relation R to c ", etc. are meaningless, if a, b, c, R, φ are not of types fitting together.
He's BAA-A-A-A-A-AACK!
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-11 15:49:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
He's BAA-A-A-A-A-AACK!
Here is what I have been doing:
http://the-pete.org/
Dr. HotSalt
2016-07-11 22:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
He's BAA-A-A-A-A-AACK!
http://the-pete.org/
Well, that explains a lot.


Dr. HotSalt
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-12 13:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 7:16:49 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???

...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.

Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf

Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.

The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-12 15:23:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.

Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf

Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.

The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.

It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.

This corresponds to Hegel's dialectical thesis, antithesis, synthesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-12 15:33:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf
Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.
The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.
It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.

This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-17 04:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf
Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.
The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.
It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.
This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.
These guys seems to be making good progress.

It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of the
meaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.
They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.
They are using Montague Semantics.

I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/

The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creating
a system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it would
be really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.
Franz Gnaedinger
2016-07-19 07:47:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf
Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.
The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.
It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.
This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.
These guys seems to be making good progress.
It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of the
meaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.
They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.
They are using Montague Semantics.
I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/
The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creating
a system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it would
be really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.
English light is not a prime word, as it goes back to Magdalenian LIC
meaning both light and luck. In a time when the night was pitch black,
having light was a great consolation, generating feelings of being lucky.
We all have memories from childhood when we were afraid in the dark and
then father or mother opened the door and turned on the light. I remember
that my stripe of luck as a child had been the slim line of light coming
through under the door of my room. No 'absolute minimum complexity' here,
nor anywhere else when it comes to language let alone reasoning and feeling.
Moreover, 'these guys' are certainly not denying Gödel's proved theorems
as you do. Yes, study their work, and study mathematical logic, and tell
your buddy Pentchov, denyer of Einstein, claiming that GPS works without
relativity theory, to study physics before clogging up several fora.
Word magic is not a way to achieve something real.
Ruud Harmsen
2016-07-19 09:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:47:35 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
English light is not a prime word,
Define "prime word"?
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
as it goes back to Magdalenian LIC meaning both light and luck.
No it does not.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/light#Etymology_1
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/lewk-

versus:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#Etymology

Completely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To my
surprise.)

About the shortening: in modern Dutch we do have the verb 'lukken' as
a form of the somewhat more formal 'gelukken'. Both mean 'succeed in
doing'.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2016-07-19 09:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#Etymology
Completely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To my
surprise.)
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Ruud Harmsen
2016-07-19 09:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#Etymology
Completely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To my
surprise.)
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false

"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanic
word'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/Low
Dutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#Danish

Swedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2016-07-19 11:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#Etymology
Completely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To my
surprise.)
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false
"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanic
word'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/Low
Dutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#Danish
Swedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.
Icelandic lukka is definitely a loan word. Hamingja is the "good" word.
Ruud Harmsen
2016-07-19 12:36:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Tue, 19 Jul 2016 04:40:10 -0700 (PDT): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#Etymology
Completely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To my
surprise.)
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false
"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanic
word'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/Low
Dutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#Danish
Swedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.
Icelandic lukka is definitely a loan word. Hamingja is the "good" word.
Yes. I had overlooked but later noticed that the Dutch book says:
"en laat-on. lykka zijn ontleend"
meaning
"and Late Old Norse lykka are loans."

(oe = Oud-Engels = Old English.)
Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
2016-07-19 18:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Tue, 19 Jul 2016 04:40:10 -0700 (PDT): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck#Etymology
Completely different. English luck is a loan from Middle Dutch! (To my
surprise.)
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
https://books.google.nl/books?id=9_X44k9-3j8C&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=geluk+etymology&source=bl&ots=ZQT-7Hk5gg&sig=uKwwCXx4dNH_CnrFPxXexK351zY&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqwrCsnv_NAhXkDsAKHan_DeIQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=geluk%20etymology&f=false
"Een uitsluitend westgerm. woord" = 'an exclusively West-Germanic
word'. True, because the Danish word is a loan from Low German/Low
Dutch: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lykke#Danish
Swedish and Icelandic too? No mention of that in Wiktionary.
Icelandic lukka is definitely a loan word. Hamingja is the "good" word.
"en laat-on. lykka zijn ontleend"
meaning
"and Late Old Norse lykka are loans."
The Modern Icelandic standard dictionary does not know lykka, only lukka, which seems to be a relatively recent loan from Danish lykke.
Franz Gnaedinger
2016-07-20 14:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
Exactly, and now there is one more root, Magdalenian LIC meaning both
light Latin lux and English luck. Prime words do not exist, they are
a phantasm of Pete Oleg aka "the-pete" who returns with his phantasm
every couple of months, hoping to bamboozle someone. Light is not at all
a simple thing, being both particle and wave. Having spent a summer day
on a nice walk ending at a lake I radiate heat, invisible infra-red light
- is this light or not in Olegian? and what about ultraviolet some
animals can see while we don't? is this light or not? Physically light
and radio waves etc. are electromagnetic waves - are they all light,
or not? Pete Oleg lingers on in the heyday of the mechanistic paradigm
and Laplace's demon that knew the exact position and state of each
and every particle and was able to calculate every past and any future.
That's an illusion we others have long overcome. Neither the physical
world nor language work that way. More accurate for language is a web logic
we have to develop. This may happen once we have good artificial neural
webs, not just simulated ones on classical computers.
Ruud Harmsen
2016-07-21 10:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:43:10 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by Ruud Harmsen
"Its etymology is unknown, although there are numerous proposals as to
its derivations from a number of roots."
Exactly, and now there is one more root, Magdalenian LIC meaning both
light Latin lux and English luck.
"Now"?

Ah, you mean after you made it up.
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-19 14:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf
Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.
The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.
It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.
This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.
These guys seems to be making good progress.
It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of the
meaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.
They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.
They are using Montague Semantics.
I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/
The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creating
a system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it would
be really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.
English light is not a prime word, as it goes back to Magdalenian LIC
meaning both light and luck. In a time when the night was pitch black,
having light was a great consolation, generating feelings of being lucky.
We all have memories from childhood when we were afraid in the dark and
then father or mother opened the door and turned on the light. I remember
that my stripe of luck as a child had been the slim line of light coming
through under the door of my room. No 'absolute minimum complexity' here,
nor anywhere else when it comes to language let alone reasoning and feeling.
Moreover, 'these guys' are certainly not denying Gödel's proved theorems
as you do. Yes, study their work, and study mathematical logic, and tell
your buddy Pentchov, denyer of Einstein, claiming that GPS works without
relativity theory, to study physics before clogging up several fora.
Word magic is not a way to achieve something real.
*PARAPHRASE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL ADDING NEW INSIGHTS*
In the preface to the book "The Liar an essay on truth and circularity" by Barwise and Etchemendy pointed out that "model theory" disallows
"languages containing their own truth predicate and allowing circular reference" because this leads to incoherence.

*THIS IS BRAND NEW MATERIAL THAT I HAVE JUST CREATED*
So when the Liar Paradox, the Halting Problem, the Incompleteness Theorem, and the Barber Paradox are all formalized using "model theory" each of these is shown to be merely incoherent.
p***@gmail.com
2016-07-21 13:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Franz Gnaedinger
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
What is the smallest possible constituent part of thought ???
...objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
Of every possible concept which one comes first in the hierarchy of the prerequisite order of the creation of ideas ?
http://the-pete.org/GodsPlan.pdf
Nothingness which is mathematically equivalent to Binary Zero.
The smallest possible incremental change that we can make to the
concept of Nothingness is its negation, or Binary one.
It seems intuitively reasonable to assign the binary values of 0, 1, and 10 to the concepts of Nothingness, Not(Nothingness) and Something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
So now it seems that we have at least partially defined the root concept from which all other concepts are derived: {existence}.
This root concept would seem to approximately correspond to the concept of a set in set theory or a node in an acyclic digraph.
These guys seems to be making good progress.
It looks like they may have created the Mathematics of the
meaning of words that I have been talking about for decades.
They are using the acyclic digraph inheritance hierarchy.
They are using Montague Semantics.
I will have to study this stuff like I did Montague to fully appreciate it.
http://www.cyc.com/documentation/natural-language-processing-in-cyc/
The one thing that they probably are not doing perfectly is creating
a system of absolute minimum complexity. It looks like it would
be really fun to study their work. They have done at least a great job.
English light is not a prime word, as it goes back to Magdalenian LIC
meaning both light and luck. In a time when the night was pitch black,
having light was a great consolation, generating feelings of being lucky.
We all have memories from childhood when we were afraid in the dark and
then father or mother opened the door and turned on the light. I remember
that my stripe of luck as a child had been the slim line of light coming
through under the door of my room. No 'absolute minimum complexity' here,
nor anywhere else when it comes to language let alone reasoning and feeling.
Moreover, 'these guys' are certainly not denying Gödel's proved theorems
as you do. Yes, study their work, and study mathematical logic, and tell
your buddy Pentchov, denyer of Einstein, claiming that GPS works without
relativity theory, to study physics before clogging up several fora.
Word magic is not a way to achieve something real.
I can now show that the Natural Language form of the famous Incompleteness Theorem is incorrect: "I am not provable" (Kurt Gödel's own words translated from German). Here is the proof for the equivalent Liar Paradox:

sci.lang
Mathematical formalization of the Liar Paradox explicitly showing its incoherence.
Franz Gnaedinger
2016-07-22 06:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
sci.lang
Mathematical formalization of the Liar Paradox explicitly showing its incoherence.
If you could show that you could prove Gödel wrong, and this would earn you
the Fields medal and Nobel prize rolled in one. But you don't understand
Gödel's proof; all you prove is that you don't comprehend. Gödel proved his
theorems with mathematical logic, while you think you can go on forever
(thirty years and counting) with word magic and big empty promises.
Loading...