Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.

On 6/15/24 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 12:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/15/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

It is not circular because *the paths are of different types*
It is only asking a question about one of these path types at
a time thus never actually circular.

>
The DEFINITION of {Thing} depends on {Physically existing thing}
The DEFINITION of {Physically existing thing} depends on {Thing}
>
That is a CYCLE
>

>
Then every conditional branch always specifies an infinite loop.

>
 From what?
>

The question: What are your parent types stops that {thing}

>
Yes, but the question: "What is a {thing}?" is defined by a cycle if its only definition is its relationships.
>

>
The question: What is a {thing} moves downward to its child types
to a finite recursive depth.

>
No, the question is "What is a {thing}"
>

>
Of course everyone can see that these two identical questions
have NOTHING to do with each other:
>
"What is a {thing}?"
"What is a {thing}?"

>
So, where do you get the anser?
>
Note, it is "what is a {thing}?" and NOT "what are the children of {thing}?"
>

>
The child nodes in a knowledge ontology exhaustively
specify the most subtle nuance of detail about each
and every thing in the set of all general knowledge.
>

>
HOW?
>
All you have IN THE SYSTEM that you have shown is a parent-child relationship between terms.
>
If the system is just describing that relationship, is says NOTHING about the actual meaning of the words.
>
I don't think you even know what a definition is or what meaning means.
>

 I guess that you can't begin to understand this
without deep understanding of knowledge ontologies.

I understand them, and the graph itself gives you the interrelationships, but you still need to assign meaning to the terms or some form of linkage of the nodes in the graph to the thing they are supposed to represent.

 

>

>

You seem to like wrong questions.
>

>
You seems to deny the identity principle.
>

>

The question: What are your child types always stops at some fixed
recursive depth.
>
*NO INFINITE LOOP HERE*

>
Because you keep asking the wrong questions, because you close your eyes to the truth.
>

>
When you don't have a clue you resort to rhetoric entirely bereft
of any supporting reasoning because this is very convincing to
clueless wonders and utterly hollow to those that have a clue.

>
Nope, You just don't seem smart enpough to understand the issues.
>

>
That you can't point to any specific gaps in my reasoning proves
that you only have baseless rhetoric. I think that we established
that my IQ is higher than yours haven't we? I forget.
>

>
I Have.
>

>
You have not.
>

You don't understand.
>
An no, your IQ is NOT higher than mine.
>

>
Do you even remember that conversation?

>
You don't remember the test score I remembered getting?
>
You said it was impossible.
>

 I don't remember. I did meet Mensa's Jerry baker at a Mensa
meeting he had an IQ 4.7 standard deviations above the mean.
You are not understanding things that every MIT BSCS would know.

Which just shows your stupidity, as MIT doesn't HAVE a BSCS degree.
And, I would put it as YOU don't understand material that is fundamental to the field.

 

>
Since that is the only IQ number I have mentioned, clearly yours is not that high.
>

>

>

>

To find the meaning of {Thing} we trace it to {Physically existing thing} which then traces to {Thing}
>
Do you not understand what a cycle is?
>

>
The tree traversal can move up the tree or down the tree
until is reaches the node where it stops.
>
What are your parent types?
What are your child types?

>
But that doesn't define what a {Thing} actually represents. By all your arguements, {Thing} could be the color "Red" and {Physically existing thig} could be "Fire Engine Red"
>

>

I guess you just don't understand the concept of meaning.
>
Makes sense for someone who doesn't understand what truth is.
>
To DEFINE what a {Thing} is, you either need to define it in terms of a collection of all its sub-componets  (which gives you a circular definition

>
So a dog has a tongue and the tongue is comprised of cells
and the cells are comprised of dog?
>
Try and provide a complete concrete example that is not nonsense.

>
But you are talking about RELATIONSHIPS and not DEFINITIONS.
>

>
By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the objects of thought ... are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>
The above can be simplified to different types of relations
between types thus fully defining every term.
>

And without definitions for the terms in your tree, the tree means nothing.
>

>
There are nodes and types of relations between nodes everything
else is explicitly defined.

>
And how are the nodes defined? WITHIN THE SYSTEM
>

>
There are nodes that have unique GUIDs.

>
Having a GUID does not assign meaning to the node, it makes it unique.
>

>
The meaning is specified by the connection to other
nodes. If we make an ISO standard dictionary of English
with standardized subscripts for sense meanings then we
get the gist of the idea of how the sense meanings of
words are defined in terms of the sense meanings of other
words.

>
Nope, that can't establish full meaning.
>

 It was not meant to. It merely showed exactly how GUIDs
can be swapped for word sense meanings retaining ALL of
the original meaning.

No, it swaps for the NUMBERING of the word sense meanings. The entries still need their defintions, and that is where you have the problems.
You keep on sidetracking yourself on side issues.

 

Note, the dictionary you just references assigns a DEFINITION to each meaning, and that DEFINITION is what defines the meaning. The issue is that the words in the definition need to be defined in order to use used in the definition, and if you don't establish a set of "first words" that you assume can understand their meaning without needing to look at there definitions, you just get caught is cycles.
>

 I guess a knowledge tree is simply over your head.

Nope, but the tree only shows the relationships between the nodes. Unless the nodes are somehow attached to meaning, they don't relate to actual knowledge.
But then, that is a fact that is largely just assumed, and not talked about, as knowledge trees aren't designed as a defintional tree, but as an interaction tree. Given this, what comes out of it.

 

>

There are types of paths that have unique GUIDs for each path type.
There are connections between nodes using paths.

>
Which says we can establish specific paths, but doesn't assign MEANING to the node.
>

>
When we simply take the above ISO standard dictionary and
swap the finite string "word" + ISO standard subscript for
GUIDs all of the original semantic meaning remains intact.

>
No, you need to include the SENSE MEANINGS attached to each of those words, and that forms a definition graph that WILL have cycles.

 English is a little sloppy in that is has some
identical sense meanings across different words.
The knowledge ontology gets rid of these duplicates.

You still don't understand
I guess you just don't understand what a DEFINITION is.

 Give me a concrete example of an actual cycle.

an oak tree is a tree that produces acorns
an acorns is the nut of an oak tree.

 

If you are carefull, you may be able to establish a reasonably small set of "first words" that you will allow to be used in defintions without needing to push into their definitions, and build a rooted directed graph from those.
>

 There are no first words.

Then there are just infinite cycles of meaning.

 

But, just like with Truth-makers, you need to have a base of words that don't need definitions to be understood to build that.

 No you do not. Simply build the whole tree on the basis
of all of the meanings that exist.

But it isn't a tree, it is a graph, a graph with cycles, unless you have some first words.

 {cow} <is a> {animal} establishes the <is a> relation
between a pair of otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

And if that is all we know, then that {cow} might be a cat, or if we don't have some defintion for {animal} we might think {animal} could be a building, and think that a {cow} could be a fire station.
You need likes between the {term} and the sort of objects they represet or you don't know what anything is. The tree lets you know the relaitonshop between the things we have identified.

 

You often still attach defintions to refine the meaning, but the idea is that you can start with the "first words" understanding and as you build up the set of words you consider you understand, you can then begin later rounds to refine the meanings.
>

 {thing} is the root of the knowledge tree.
It is completely meaningless until its children
are defined.

And even when you define the terms for its children, you still don't know of something you have is actauly a {thing} or not, or which of the childern terms it might be.
EVERYTHING is meaningless until you start to define some of them to conenct them to actual ideas and things.

 

>

>
That <is> the essence of the
Cyc knowledge ontology / simple type hierarchy.

>
So, it seems, by YOUR description, Cyc knowledge ontology doesn't actually know the meaning of anything in its database,
>

>

>

It could just as easily had all the words replace with non-sense items like {type-1}, {type-2}, {type-3}, ... which means it tells you nothing about what you want to know.
>
>

>
The Cyc project does just that with its GUIDs and it works
just fine.

>
That tells us which of several meanings to use, but not what those meanings actually mean.
>

>
Each unique sense meaning has its own GUID.
>

>
Which doesn't mean it has a meaning. It has a spot for a unique meaning.
>
We can build definitions of words in the tree from other words, but those definitions will form a cycle.

>
If there is a cycle there then the ISO standard dictionary
would also have a cycle.
>

>
They Do.
>

 dogma counts for less than nothing.

Show me a word that is a word that could be the root of the definition tree, that means it can not depend on the meaning of ANY other word, or those words would need to be lower than it on the meaning tree.
Dogma IS CORRECT is fields with actual authorities.

 

Find a word that doesn't use words to define its sense meaning. If there is no "first word" then there must be a cycle.