On 4/26/2026 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:In order to prove that climat change is true it is sufficient toOn 25/04/2026 15:19, olcott wrote:It is updated.On 4/25/2026 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 24/04/2026 18:01, olcott wrote:>On 4/24/2026 1:08 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 23/04/2026 16:32, olcott wrote:On 4/23/2026 1:35 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 22/04/2026 10:45, olcott wrote:>On 4/22/2026 2:03 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 21/04/2026 16:22, olcott wrote:>On 4/21/2026 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 20/04/2026 16:31, olcott wrote:>On 4/20/2026 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 19/04/2026 20:21, olcott wrote:>On 4/19/2026 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 18/04/2026 15:58, olcott wrote:>>>
Unknown truths are not elements of the body of
knowledge is a semantic tautology. Did you think
that things that are unknown are known?
No, but that measn that for some sentences X True(X) is unknown and there
is no method to find out.
>
I don't know about philosophers but mathematicians and logicians don't
find it interesting if all you can say that all knowledge is knowable
and everything else is not.
Ross Finlayson, seemed to endlessly hedge on whether
or not the truth value of the Goldbach conjecture was
known. He seemed to think that there are alternative
analytical frameworks that make the question of whether
or not its truth value is known an ambiguous question.
>
I needed to refer to unknown truth values specifically
because all "undecidability" when construed correctly
falls into one of two categories.
(a) Semantic incoherence
(b) Unknown truth values.
A centence can be said to be undecidable when it is known that neither
the sentence nor its negation is a theorem.
When we skip model theory and and define True and False
as the existence of a back chained sequence of inference
steps of expressions x or ~x reaching axioms
It is not useful to define new terms for comcepts that already have
good terms.
The result of undecidability proves that the current
foundations are incoherent in the same way that
Russell's paradox proved that naive set theory had
a glitch.
Hardly the same way as Russell's paradox proves that there is no
undecidability in the naive set theory.
>>If the sequence of inference steps is restricted to>
valid inferences the term "True" as defined above then "sentence is
true" is just another way to say "sentence is a theorem".
>then it is a yes or no question that has no correct yes>
or no answer within the formal system.
Even if a question has no answer within a formal theory of natural
numbers it may have an answer in the natural numbers themselves.
>My system is based on simple type theory and formalized>
natural language.
>
This makes it a yes or no question that has no
correct yes or no answer at all anywhere, thus
an incorrect polar question.
How does your system handle questions that are not known to have a
yes or no answer but k´nor known to lack such answer, either, e.g. Goldbach's conjecture ?
out-of-scope of the body of knowledge.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
So the question whether something is in the scope of your system
is not in the scope of your system? OK, but shoudn't such questions
be answerable anyway?
The truth value of the Goldbach conjecture might
be unknowable if it is true and the only way to
prove it is true is an infinite number of steps.
Peano arithmetic is unsolvable, i.e., there is no method to find
out whether a particular sentence (for exmaple Goldbach conjecture)
is provable or not. If you find a proof then you know it but it is
possible that you never find, no matter how much you search.
Goldbach is unknowable if it is true because
verifying that it is true requires an infinite
number of steps.
That is not known. Perhaps there is an unknown proof that proves it.That is a correct correction.>
However, my correction is not complete. The question how your system
handles Goldbach's conjecture and similar cases is still unanswered.
It is hard-coded to know that the truth value is not
currently known.
So when the truth value is found out
> Everything else about the Goldbach conjecture is also hard-codedYes.
> such as the biography of Goldbach.
>
More about those things may also be discovered. It is even possible
that something we thought we know will be found to be false.
>
Not exactly. When fully implemented it can conclusively>Goldbach is known and possibly unknowable.>
Everthing is that is known is knowable. But that does not include
the decidability and truth value of Goldbach's conjecture.
>My system is only concerned with knowledge
expressed in language.
So essentially an ecyclopedia + a search engine.
prove that climate change is real, that people saying
otherwise are liars and not merely mistaken.
collect statistics of observation for a sufficiently long time
(at least 50 years, preferably 100) and to compute trends and
significancies. WHich will be doen anyway, regardless of anything
you can do.
That there was no actual evidence of election fraudThat your system is unaware of any evidence of election fraud does
that could have possibly changed the results of the
2020 presidential election.
not mean that there aren't any. Peaple may have material that they
have not revealed.
That Trump implemented this exact quote from Hitler'sTrump didn't implement it any more than Hitler did. It is just a description of how people already are, and how to adapt to that.
Mein Kampf to convince people otherwise:
"The receptive powers of the masses are very
restricted, and their understanding is feeble.
On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such
being the case, all effective propaganda must
be confined to a few bare essentials and those
must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped
formulas. These slogans should be persistently
repeated until the very last individual has come
to grasp the idea that has been put forward."
>Which the decidability and truth value of Goldbach's conjecture>
will be if they ever will be known.
Yes that it correct.
It also means that your system is incomplete and needs updates
whenever somebody discovers something (which happens many times
every day).
If by incomplete you mean it is never the infallibleBy incomplete I mean that there are questions that the system can
all knowing mind of God you would be correct.
If by incomplete you mean ever has less than 99% of
the sum total of all human general knowledge you
would be incorrect. Some of its knowledge of news
stories will remain provisional until fully vetted.
not answer. Whether the truth value of Goldbach's conjecture can
be inferred from the known properties of natural numbers is one
example.
--
Mikko
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.