On 7/1/2026 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:I spent 10,000 hours on it over 22 years.On 7/1/2026 4:15 PM, dbush wrote:In other words, you don't understand that if this was algorithm H:On 7/1/2026 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:>On 7/1/2026 3:57 PM, dbush wrote:>On 7/1/2026 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:>On 7/1/2026 3:37 PM, dbush wrote:>On 7/1/2026 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:>On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>On 2026-07-01 13:53, olcott wrote:>On 7/1/2026 2:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>On 2026-07-01 12:51, olcott wrote:>On 7/1/2026 1:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>On 2026-07-01 12:15, dbush wrote:>On 7/1/2026 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:>>The same thing as: "cats are animals" expressed in>
English has no English meaning in Chinese.
I didn't ask for an example. I asked for a definition of what it mean for the truth value of a statement to not exist in a formal system.
I'm actually not convinced that Olcott understands what a definition is. I've frequently asked him for definitions and he invariably responds with an example or an analogy (assuming he responds at all). He doesn't get that examples don't take the place of definitions. Examples can be useful for clarifying definitions, but they aren't particularly useful on their own.
>
André
>
You want a definition look-it-up.
Until someone publishes an Olcott to Standard English dictionary, this isn't really an option.
>
André
>
True(L, X) ≡ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X) // copyright Olcott 2018
has been updated to this
>
True(L, X):= ∃Γ ⊆ AtomicFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X)
That claims what it means to have the truth value 'true' (or at least it would if you defined AtomicFacts in a coherent way). It doesn't in any way clarify what you think it means for something to not have a truth value.
>
André
>
When I define a term hundreds of times and you did
not bother to pay attention that is your mistake
and your fault.
>
You gave no such definition of what it means for the truth value of a statement to not exist in a formal system.
>
A valid answer would look something like this:
>
"The truth value of a statement does not exist in a formal system when ..."
>
Now complete the sentence.
It is neither provable nor refutable in F.
Good. So when you say "The truth value of (∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) does not exist in Q", you mean "(∀ x, S(x) ≠ x) is unprovable in Q", which is commonly known.
>
So once again, you're saying the same thing as everyone else but using different words.
>
Not really. It is normally thought of as undecidable
meaning that Q is incomplete meaning that Q is deficient.
False. It means that there are statements in the language of Q that have *only* an infinite connection to the axioms of the system.
>
OK, I verified that.
>>>>
The Halting Problem counter-example input
Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm H exists that meets the following requirements:
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>
Sure and we could equally start with the requirement
to prove that there exists a natural number > 3 and < 2.
>
I really don't see how everyone did not immediately see
that the requirement for H to correctly report the halt
status of input D that does the opposite of whatever H
reports is a moronically stupid requirement within the
first five minutes that this requirement was made.
It has always been fucking nuts to require a machine
to report on the behavior of another machine that
does the opposite of whatever it reports.
Are you too fucking stupid to see this?
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.