----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<9c487ba0-f376-441c-8e3c-a7612cae1466n@googlegroups.com> e9d73c3d
@REPLY:
<a328c2f8-1faa-4809-a7ab-700c369000adn@googlegroups.com> 5a5916a8
@REPLYADDR Jeffrey Rubard
<jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Jeffrey Rubard
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
<cabd7f3b-4c8b-4ebe-84a9-9dfd10409259n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<9f4cd9a1-07d2-427a-9648-053c160fefb1n@googlegroups.com> <a431d305-ab7b-4dc0-b475-950aa138705en@googlegroups.com>
<edc644ce-b6a7-441b-b747-d52ccbfb8ec8n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<02fe981d-0578-4c96-b5b7-93d326ade079n@googlegroups.com> <3ec5021c-53fe-47ae-af4a-20d5cbc06312n@googlegroups.com>
2@dont-email.me> <598e94c6-917d-47d9-979e-13ec3a1a9c35n@googlegroups.com>
1@dont-email.me> GNG9.48569@fx18.iad> 4@dont-email.me>
vBI8.196204@fx15.iad> 1@gioia.aioe.org> PXw7.96987@fx45.iad>
1@dont-email.me> 9sn9.288852@fx17.iad> 3@dont-email.me>
iS99.156398@fx16.iad> 5@dont-email.me>
<a6b82a4d-21e4-4496-b12c-272fcf609cc8n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<946435d5-b8e0-45c5-a68c-b56fd3e52261n@googlegroups.com> <94d79b11-5884-4dc7-810e-226d7611f65fn@googlegroups.com>
<61dd631f-2dcf-4d29-9a6b-bc37b23840aan@googlegroups.com> <950192e7-440f-4e41-adc2-f96b29ff7d1dn@googlegroups.com>
<0952f211-cb43-4cd9-bdf1-3ac0c6ada073n@googlegroups.com> <84bddacd-608f-4f4c-873d-697b9b3be160n@googlegroups.com>
<b7104005-b767-4032-8ee4-05fe6b7db38fn@googlegroups.com> <4928a741-23c9-456b-8736-36ace5fe4807n@googlegroups.com>
<a8dfc68c-01a9-4c8f-8dd1-8a3e3261a919n@googlegroups.com> <f86eec7b-3441-4897-a0e2-7fcf1f3aca8fn@googlegroups.com>
<be32c677-f8a8-488f-91a9-b858e60b1872n@googlegroups.com> <a6abf032-38d3-4428-8043-929c922ac015n@googlegroups.com>
<eae1369b-5463-4cb9-b0da-57de0d66c6a6n@googlegroups.com> <175d4275-c114-45d0-a20e-8631a78fe7cen@googlegroups.com>
<152860ed-952a-4a26-b7d8-a5cb2b3aaeb1n@googlegroups.com> <2de25265-badf-4948-9a4e-f33062680b5dn@googlegroups.com>
<b11ba96e-802a-48e7-a18b-92d7c65f87cfn@googlegroups.com> <6489e681-55df-4476-bc71-ef6ed9cbab4bn@googlegroups.com>
<af74e910-bf26-4642-95ed-2484726999a3n@googlegroups.com> <b882de1d-744d-4686-8b93-3414f67ca0c4n@googlegroups.com>
<d37a7cd1-ef0e-4368-851f-9e402f5a72c6n@googlegroups.com> <a328c2f8-1faa-4809-a7ab-700c369000adn@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<9c487ba0-f376-441c-8e3c-a7612cae1466n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8,
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM UTC-8,
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM UTC-8,
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59 AM
UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 1:15:28 PM
UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:29:55
AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:23:29
PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023 at
9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at
3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at
9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January 14, 2023
at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 12,
2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 10,
2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 9,
2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January
9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday,
January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday,
January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On
1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On
1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On
1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It`s a dumb f`in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I`ve made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can`t say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and `mathematizability` were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry-Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry-Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> And you don`t seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
That {cats}
{living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We
determine that {cats} {living things} by back-chained inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> No,
because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> what
a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For
instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A
knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of
these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this
set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> hits
a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
"What`s a GUID? Oh, that`s not a concept of the philosophy of language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a
concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 128-bit
integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
process. It is also used By Doug Lenat`s CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copyright
2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hits a
target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think
there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of this
scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I could
see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual `dog and
pony show`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about (what they
know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you`ll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean it`s
dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I could
believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any rate,
"categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have an "app" for
that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable keeping on
muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That`s the "great
enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested" academic papers
as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the audience:
Yeah, it`s an intellectual-property scam I`ve had run on me several times.
You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what`s true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start to
figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to
"bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn actually
sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of cover
from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow has to
be "still rock and roll to you", it`s 2023 for everybody and we
really can`t do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don`t understand. The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of deception,
never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us know what
you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard fellow`s
`claim` is really pretty interesting compared to this `crackpot` garbage.
Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining `piss-poor
crackpots`, pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > "We don`t mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > "That`s a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like you say,
we`re just not `letting on`."
> > > > > > > > > "That`s actually one of the meanings of the
word `crackpot`. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > Like, I didn`t make that up.
> > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term
`crackpot` is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > you are `putting one over` on people with material
such as we see here.
> > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote `em".
> > > > > "You know what... maybe there`s some kind of outside
chance that`s true... and maybe not."
> > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual computer
professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > Guess so!
> Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.
It`s just not possible to "respect" it, even as malicious hoaxing.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441