On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:
Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.
I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.
Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?
I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.
On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:
Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.
I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.
Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?
I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.
This is an extremely peculiar position to take.
The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and admit
no ambiguity.
The real reason, I suspect, why you avoid terms of the art is because
you can't be bothered to actually learn what they mean, and instead try
to invent your own meaning "compositionally" (as you've said on several occasions). What you fail to understand is that language isn't
interpreted compositionally; rather, *some* language is interpreted compositionally.
André
On 6/19/2026 6:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:
Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.
I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.
Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?
I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.
This is an extremely peculiar position to take.
The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and
admit no ambiguity.
The real reason, I suspect, why you avoid terms of the art is because
you can't be bothered to actually learn what they mean, and instead
try to invent your own meaning "compositionally" (as you've said on
several occasions). What you fail to understand is that language isn't
interpreted compositionally; rather, *some* language is interpreted
compositionally.
André
Here are some terms-of-the-art that make perfect sense:
Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses
thus not limited to logical constants.
On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:
Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.
I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.
Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?
I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.
This is an extremely peculiar position to take.
The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and admit
no ambiguity.
On 20/06/2026 02:42, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:
Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.
I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.
Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?
I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.
This is an extremely peculiar position to take.
The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and
admit no ambiguity.
Which is a good reason to avoid them when one needs ambiguity for
deception.
On 6/20/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 02:42, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:
Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.
I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.
Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?
I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.
This is an extremely peculiar position to take.
The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and
admit no ambiguity.
Which is a good reason to avoid them when one needs ambiguity for
deception.
When reverse-engineering a brand new foundation for
mathematics one derives all kinds of new meanings
that have no associated terms.
Now that my reverse-engineering process it finally
complete and finally has a common basis I can start
using terms-of-the-art.
A "well founded justification tree" is probably the
most important idea in Proof Theoretic Semantics yet
PTS itself has a jumble of different terms referring
to this idea that vary by author with no unified term.
I collected them all together yesterday.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 18:10:58 |
| Calls: | 14,391 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
1,572 files (401M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,544,800 |
| Posted today: | 1 |