Re: How a True(X) predicate can be defined for the set of analytic knowledge

On 3/23/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 10:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:15:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/22/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 14:07:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>

It is pretty stupid to claim that Knowledge "⊂" Truth is an example of
fraud.
True(X) works perfectly within the body of knowledge that can be
expressed using language.

But not for unknown truths.

Is it really that hard to understand that knowledge does not include
unknowns?

No, but unknowns are still true.
>

 When we define the set of all general knowledge
that can be expressed using language then we
have the basis for creating artificial general
intelligence.
 

Nope, you just don't understand how AI works.
There is a computational barrier that limits how many "facts" the "neuron cluster" can remember based on its "size", and the computational requirement grow exponentially with size, so the limitation isn't how much "data" we can provide the system, but how well we can pre-organize things so it doesn't need to actually "learn" stuff.
Your problem is you just don't understand the nature of what you talk about, but seem to have read just the CliffsNotes version and think you understand the details which were never actually discussed in the abreviation given.
This causes you to not know what you don't know, and then your nature seems to assume that you can make up what every you want and just assume it to be true, which just makes you system broken.
Sorry, you are proven that you are totally ignorant of the basics of the things you talk about, and that your "arguments" are just based on the FRAUD of using incorrect definitions for core terms, because you think you are allowed to change the.