Discussion:
OT Dunning–Kruger effect (the mathematics of the meaning of words)
(too old to reply)
Pete Olcott
2017-11-16 18:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/16/2017 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse
wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:***@bsb.me.uk"> <pre wrap="">peteolcott <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:***@gmail.com">&lt;***@gmail.com&gt;</a> writes:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:54:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">peteolcott wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Countable means {Can be counted}
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That's one meaning. Why do you think that words cannot have a
multiplicity of meanings? Or, more precisely, why do you think they
cannot have meanings that you haven't sanctioned?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There is a single unique set of meanings.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
You know that is not the case. You have an example to hand.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have spend thirty years focusing on this, I am certain that this
is the case. <br>
What I have been focusing my full time attention on in the last 18
months is mathematically formalizing this key insight. <br>
<br>
<b>Minimal Type Theory (MTT)</b><b><br>
</b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://philpapers.org/archive/PETMTT-4.pdf">https://philpapers.org/archive/PETMTT-4.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<b>Provability within Minimal Type Theory </b><b><br>
</b><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCPWM.pdf">https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCPWM.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:***@bsb.me.uk">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To overload the meaning of a word with its antonym adds unnecessary
complexity that very much hinders effective communication.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The mathematical meaning is not the antonym of the everyday usage. The
cars that pass my house are countable. I am still counting them. They
are countable in the sense that they can, in principle, be numbered and
they don't stop being countable because I won't be able to finish.

Why, though, do conversations with cranks so often turn out to be about
words rather than meanings? You know what I (and others) mean by our
"countable sets" so you could simply discuss the meaning rather than get
in a state about the word. By all means, call then "xumic sets" if you
prefer a unique name for the notion but what matters is that some sets
are xumic and other are not.

&lt;snip&gt;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<b><br>
</b>The current process of assigning meanings to terms of the art on
the basis of their common meanings greatly hinders the effectiveness
of the communication process. <br>
<br>
If we were to define these terms of the art within the natural
preexisting order of the set of all knowledge (<font size="+1"><b>the
mathematics of the meaning of words</b></font>) there would be
no need to ever supersede the meaning of a word with any subtle
nuance of diverging meaning. <br>
<br>
We would only need to augment a base meaning with additional details
within an inheritance hierarchy.  When we have exhaustively
elaborated such a system, human cognition by an algorithm is thereby
specified by this inheritance hierarchy. <br>
<br>
<b>Copyright 2017 Pete Olcott</b><b><br>
</b>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="0">--
Defining Tarski’s ∀x True(x) ↔ φ(x)
∀x True(x) ↔ ∃y Provable(y, x) // True entirely defined by Provability
∀x False(x) ↔ ∃y Provable(y, ~x) // False entirely defined by Refutability</pre>
</body>
</html>
DKleinecke
2017-11-16 18:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Olcott
On 11/16/2017 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse
Countable means {Can be counted}
That's one meaning. Why do you think that words cannot have a
multiplicity of meanings? Or, more precisely, why do you think they
cannot have meanings that you haven't sanctioned?
There is a single unique set of meanings.
You know that is not the case. You have an example to hand.
I have spend thirty years focusing on this, I am certain that this
is the case.
What I have been focusing my full time attention on in the last 18
months is mathematically formalizing this key insight.
Minimal Type Theory (MTT)
https://philpapers.org/archive/PETMTT-4.pdf
Provability within Minimal Type Theory
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCPWM.pdf
To overload the meaning of a word with its antonym adds unnecessary
complexity that very much hinders effective communication.
The mathematical meaning is not the antonym of the everyday usage. The
cars that pass my house are countable. I am still counting them. They
are countable in the sense that they can, in principle, be numbered and
they don't stop being countable because I won't be able to finish.
Why, though, do conversations with cranks so often turn out to be about
words rather than meanings? You know what I (and others) mean by our
"countable sets" so you could simply discuss the meaning rather than get
in a state about the word. By all means, call then "xumic sets" if you
prefer a unique name for the notion but what matters is that some sets
are xumic and other are not.
<snip>
The current process of assigning meanings to terms of the art on
the basis of their common meanings greatly hinders the effectiveness
of the communication process.
If we were to define these terms of the art within the natural
preexisting order of the set of all knowledge (the
mathematics of the meaning of words) there would be
no need to ever supersede the meaning of a word with any subtle
nuance of diverging meaning.
We would only need to augment a base meaning with additional details
within an inheritance hierarchy.  When we have exhaustively
elaborated such a system, human cognition by an algorithm is thereby
specified by this inheritance hierarchy.
Copyright 2017 Pete Olcott
--
Defining Tarski’s ∀x True(x) ↔ φ(x)
∀x True(x) ↔ ∃y Provable(y, x) // True entirely defined by Provability
∀x False(x) ↔ ∃y Provable(y, ~x) // False entirely defined by Refutability
There is no "mathematics of the meanings of words".

There is no "natural preexisting oder of the set of all
knowledge".

There is no "set of all knowledge"

There is no definition of "knowledge".
Daud Deden
2017-11-22 16:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why incompetent people often think they’re actually the best

(Vox online article)

There’s a psychological phenomenon behind it: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Updated by German ***@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com Nov 18, 2017, 10:30am EST

"There’s a way to prevent all of this: “First, ask for feedback from other people — and consider it, even if it’s hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning."
-
DKleinecke
2017-11-22 17:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daud Deden
Why incompetent people often think they’re actually the best
(Vox online article)
There’s a psychological phenomenon behind it: the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"There’s a way to prevent all of this: “First, ask for feedback from other people — and consider it, even if it’s hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning."
-
Consider the beam in your own eye.
Daud Deden
2017-11-22 19:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
Post by Daud Deden
Why incompetent people often think they’re actually the best
(Vox online article)
There’s a psychological phenomenon behind it: the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"There’s a way to prevent all of this: “First, ask for feedback from other people — and consider it, even if it’s hard to hear. Second, and more important, keep learning."
-
Consider the beam in your own eye.
Not a beam but once a bullet, thankfully removed by an eye surgeon.
Loading...