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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 15. Jun 2024, 19:23:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v4kim5$2219$11@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2024 12:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2024 11:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2024 10:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>
{thing} is the root of the whole knowledge tree.
>
And what DEFINES {thing}?
>
>
Its constituents.
>
In other words, the definition is circular.
>
>
If you can't understand that a type hierarchy is not circular
then your knowledge is woefully inadequate to continue this
discussion.
>
But the type hierarchy is not the definitions of the type hierarchy.
>
You can not DEFINE the hierarchy without reference to either circular defintions or terms outside your system.
>
>
Prove that.
>
>
Try to show me one that does.
>
>
Yo are making the claim either show a concrete example
of this claim or retract it.
>
I am claiming that somethng does not exist / can't be done.
>
I have demonstrated the reasoning.
>
That something doesn't exist CAN'T be shown "by example", as it says that no such thing can exist.
>
>
The simple explanation is how do you define one of the root terms. If you try to define it based on what derives from it, you get circular.
>
*IT IS ALWAYS A FREAKING TREE AND TREES NEVER HAVE ANY CYCLES*
>
But the MEANING of the terms from a cycle or refer to something outside.
>
I guess you just don't understand what a "meaning" is.
>
That makes sense, because you are always getting them wrong.
>
>
Animal inherits some of its properties from {living thing}
and specifies additional properties that only apply to
the animal sub-type of living thing.
>
And where do you get the MEANING of those diferentiators?
>
>
{Thing}--->[super type of]{Physically existing thing}
{Thing}<-----[sub type of]{Physically existing thing}
>
>
>
And thus the definition of {Thing} is circular with {Physically existing things}
>
 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
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.
Where did ANYTHING actually get MEANING for what it is.
It seems your whole logic is just make-beleive.

 
or you end up with the same problem at the leaves, but many more of them) or you define it with refernce to concepts OUTSIDE the hierarchy being built, by an Emperical reference to the real world.
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jun 24 * Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---270olcott
10 Jun 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---267Richard Damon
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error266olcott
11 Jun 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error265Richard Damon
11 Jun 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error264olcott
11 Jun 24 i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error263Richard Damon
11 Jun 24 i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten262olcott
12 Jun 24 i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten260Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten259olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten223Python
12 Jun 24 i     i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten222olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten221Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten220olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten219Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules218olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules217Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules216olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules215Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules214olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules213Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules212olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules211Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules210olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules209Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules208olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules207Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules206olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules205Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules204olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules203Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules202olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules201Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules172olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules171Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)170olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)169Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)168olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)167Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)166olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)58Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)57olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)56Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)6olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)5Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)4olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)3Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i    `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)49olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)48Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.47olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.39Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.38olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.37Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.36olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.35Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.34olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.33Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.32olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.31Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.30olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.29Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.28olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.27Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.26olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.25Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.24olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.23Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.22olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.21Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.20olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.19Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.18olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.17Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.16olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.15Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.14olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.13Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.12olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.11Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.10olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.9Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.8olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.7Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.6olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.5Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.4olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.3Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.2olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                     `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.7joes
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.6olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)5Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i        +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)2olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i        i`- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)2olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i         `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)1Richard Damon
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply48olcott
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply47Richard Damon
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply44olcott
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply43Richard Damon
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply2olcott
22 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      `* DDD correctly emulated by H059olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      +* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies12olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES16olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten35Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24 +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---1olcott
11 Jun 24 `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal