The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
Thus True(L,x) merely means there is a sequence of truth
preserving operations from x in L to elementary theorems
of L.
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
Thus True(L,x) merely means there is a sequence of truth
preserving operations from x in L to elementary theorems
of L.
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem means >> that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems
are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
The only way that way know that the set named "cats" is a subset
of the set named "animals" is that it is stipulated to be true is
that it is stipulated.
The set of properties that belong to the named set of "cats" and the set
of "animals" is also stipulated to be true. "cats" <have> "lungs".
Thus True(L,x) merely means there is a sequence of truth
preserving operations from x in L to elementary theorems
of L.
Usually that prperty of a string is not called True. Instead, a non-
empty sequence of strings where each member is an elementary theorem or
can be
inferred from strings nearer the beginning of the sequence by the inference >> rules is called a proof. The set of theorems is the set that contains every >> string that is he last members of a proof and no other string.
The elementary theorems (ET) are stipulated to have the semantic property
of Boolean true.
Other expressions x are only true when x can be derived by applying a sequence of truth preserving operations to (ET) (typically back-chained inference).
Postulates, theoresm, inference rules and theorems are not parts of a
language but together with language constritue a large system that is
called a theory.
That is typically the way it is done yet becomes difficult to understand
when applied to natural language. We never think of English as dividable
into separate theories.
We construe English as also containing all of the semantics of English.
We never have systems of English whether the same expression is the
truth in one system and a lie in another system.
In order to discuss meanings and truth a still larger
system is needed where the strings of a theory are related to something
else (for example real world objects or strings of another language).
Not really. When we have a separate model theory then crucial
details get overlooked.
When we look at a language (including all of its semantics as)
relations between finite strings then we can see all of the
details with none overlooked.
From Tarski's perspective this would mean that a language
is its own metal-language.
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else >>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem
means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary
theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems. >>>
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string
is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems. >>>>
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems
are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
There are no elementary theorems of English.
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning. When one realizes that
every other human language does this differently then
this is easier to see. {cats are animals} == 貓是動物
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem
means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary
theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string
is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems
are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
There are no elementary theorems of English.
The only way that way know that the set named "cats" is a subset
of the set named "animals" is that it is stipulated to be true is
that it is stipulated.
The meanings of most English words (including "cat", "is", and "animal"
do not come from stipulations but tradition. The tradition is not
always uniform although there is not much variation with "cat" or
"animal" and what there is that does not affet the truth of "cats are animals". The answers may vary if you ask about more extic beings like sponges or slime molds.
The statement "cats are animals" is regarded as true because nobody has
seen or even heard about any being that satisfies the traditional meaning
of "cat" but not the raditional meaning of "animal".
The set of properties that belong to the named set of "cats" and the set
of "animals" is also stipulated to be true. "cats" <have> "lungs".
Sharks are usually consederd "animals" but don't have lungs. THerefore "lungs" is not relevant above.
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic
theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else >>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem means >>>> that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems. >>>
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string is a >>>> member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems. >>>>
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems
are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
There are no elementary theorems of English
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
When one realizes that
every other human language does this differently then
this is easier to see. {cats are animals} == 貓是動物
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different >>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the >>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the >>>>>>>> language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined >>>>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs >>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything
else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary
theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the
elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary
theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a
string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary
theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions >>>>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so >>>>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred >>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems >>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
There are no elementary theorems of English
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions
of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the
word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
When one realizes that
every other human language does this differently then
this is easier to see. {cats are animals} == 貓是動物
https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf
Words are often different in other languages (though e.g. Swedish "cat"
or Maltese "qattus" are not very different). Variations of meanings at
least for this word tend to be smaller than variations within a single
language.
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations
between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of
natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning
of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their
truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally
associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out
for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different >>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the >>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the >>>>>>>> language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined >>>>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs >>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else >>>>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems. >>>>>
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems. >>>>>>
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions >>>>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so >>>>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred >>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems >>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
There are no elementary theorems of English
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions
of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the
word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations >>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals"
(in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their >>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally >>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out >>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different >>>>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the >>>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the >>>>>>>>>> language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined >>>>>>>> so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs >>>>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else >>>>>>>> are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems. >>>>>>>>
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions >>>>>>>> between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so >>>>>>>> that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred >>>>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems >>>>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
There are no elementary theorems of English
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions >>>> of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the
word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little
about languages before 4000 BC.
Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined beginning.
If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and
"catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then
it is older than the English language.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you
consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even
now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that
can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words.
None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is
it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj"
meaningless gibberish.
On 9/17/2024 9:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-17 13:01:37 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:There are no elementary theorems of English
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations >>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals" >>>>>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally >>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many >>>>>>>>>>>> different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of >>>>>>>>>>>> the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually >>>>>>>>>> defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it >>>>>>>>>> belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or
anything else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary >>>>>>>>>> theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the
elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary >>>>>>>>> theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a >>>>>>>>>> string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary >>>>>>>>>> theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain >>>>>>>>>> realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually >>>>>>>>>> defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be >>>>>>>>>> inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary
theorems
are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}. >>>>>>>>
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English
expressions
of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the >>>>>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little
about languages before 4000 BC.
Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined beginning. >>>> If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and
"catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then
it is older than the English language.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you
consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even
now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that
can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words.
None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is
it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj"
meaningless gibberish.
It is not necessary to be told. I have learned many words simply
observing how other peoöle use them.
Inferring is merely indirectly being told.
If you sat in a cave with no outside contact then
word "cat" would remain pure gibberish forever.
Of course foreign langugage
words are often learned from dictionaries and textbooks that give
translations of the words. You cannot learn words from dfinitions
or being told unless you already know enogh words with menaings
to understand those dfinitions and other explanations.
So starting with the exact same caveman grunt for everything
distinctive meanings for different grunts must be established
or they remain utterly meaningless gibberish.
Communication between individuals using these different grunts
cannot occur until both sides know the same established meanings.
This all boils down to the ultimate basis of knowledge expressed
as language is stipulated relations between finite strings or
prior to written language stipulated relations between phonemes.
On 9/17/2024 9:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-17 13:01:37 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:There are no elementary theorems of English
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations >>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals" >>>>>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true.
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally >>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different >>>>>>>>>>>> purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the >>>>>>>>>>>> language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs >>>>>>>>>> to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language.
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary
statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred >>>>>>>>>> from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems >>>>>>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}. >>>>>>>>
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions
of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the >>>>>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little
about languages before 4000 BC.
Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined beginning. >>>> If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and
"catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then
it is older than the English language.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you
consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even
now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that
can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words.
None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is
it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj"
meaningless gibberish.
It is not necessary to be told. I have learned many words simply
observing how other peoöle use them.
Inferring is merely indirectly being told.
If you sat in a cave with no outside contact then
word "cat" would remain pure gibberish forever.
Of course foreign langugage
words are often learned from dictionaries and textbooks that give
translations of the words. You cannot learn words from dfinitions
or being told unless you already know enogh words with menaings
to understand those dfinitions and other explanations.
So starting with the exact same caveman grunt for everything
distinctive meanings for different grunts must be established
or they remain utterly meaningless gibberish.
Communication between individuals using these different grunts
cannot occur until both sides know the same established meanings.
This all boils down to the ultimate basis of knowledge expressed
as language is stipulated relations between finite strings or
prior to written language stipulated relations between phonemes.
On 9/18/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-17 15:20:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/17/2024 9:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-17 13:01:37 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:There are no elementary theorems of English
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings,
usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it >>>>>>>>>>>> belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or >>>>>>>>>>>> anything else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary >>>>>>>>>>>> theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the >>>>>>>>>>>> elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be
elementary theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether >>>>>>>>>>>> a string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary >>>>>>>>>>>> theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain >>>>>>>>>>>> realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually >>>>>>>>>>>> defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be >>>>>>>>>>>> inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary >>>>>>>>>>>> theorems
are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}. >>>>>>>>>>
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English
expressions
of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the >>>>>>>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little
about languages before 4000 BC.
Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined
beginning.
If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and >>>>>> "catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then >>>>>> it is older than the English language.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you >>>>>> consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even >>>>>> now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that >>>>>> can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words.
None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is
it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj"
meaningless gibberish.
It is not necessary to be told. I have learned many words simply
observing how other peoöle use them.
Inferring is merely indirectly being told.
No, it is not. It is an entirely different process. Being told is not
possible unless someone else already knows. Observation and inferring
are possible even when nobody knows or no other people are present.
Of course observation of people requires their presence but even then
it is possible observe sometingh about them they don't know themselves.
If you sat in a cave with no outside contact then
word "cat" would remain pure gibberish forever.
In that situation I would worry about other things.
I am trying to explain how finite strings acquire
meaning and you just don't seem to want to hear it.
It is impossible to understand the foundation of
linguistic truth without first knowing its basis
and you just don't want to hear it.
Of course foreign langugage
words are often learned from dictionaries and textbooks that give
translations of the words. You cannot learn words from dfinitions
or being told unless you already know enogh words with menaings
to understand those dfinitions and other explanations.
So starting with the exact same caveman grunt for everything
distinctive meanings for different grunts must be established
or they remain utterly meaningless gibberish.
Without a language there is no way to agree about meanings.
Communication between individuals using these different grunts
cannot occur until both sides know the same established meanings.
Meanings cannot be setablished before a communication occurs.
This all boils down to the ultimate basis of knowledge expressed
as language is stipulated relations between finite strings or
prior to written language stipulated relations between phonemes.
Knowledge is an older and more common phenomenon than language.
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
knowledge expressed as language
Many animals live alone so don't need much communication but do
need knowledge about their environment.
On 9/18/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-17 15:20:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/17/2024 9:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-17 13:01:37 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/17/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-16 11:57:11 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/16/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-15 17:09:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/15/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-14 14:01:31 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/14/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:There are no elementary theorems of English
On 2024-09-13 14:38:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/13/2024 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-04 03:41:58 +0000, olcott said:
The Foundation of Linguistic truth is stipulated relations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between finite strings.
The only way that we know that "cats" <are> "animals" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in English) is the this is stipulated to be true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*This is related to*
Truth-conditional semantics is an approach to semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural language that sees meaning (or at least the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of assertions) as being the same as, or reducible to, their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth conditions. This approach to semantics is principally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with Donald Davidson, and attempts to carry out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the semantics of natural language what Tarski's semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of truth achieves for the semantics of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-conditional_semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Yet equally applies to formal languages*
No, it does not. Formal languages are designed for many different
purposes. Whether they have any semantics and the nature of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of those that have is determined by the purpose of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
Formal languages are essentially nothing more than
relations between finite strings.
Basically a formal language is just a set of strings, usually defined
so that it is easy to determine about each string whether it belongs
to that subset. Relations of strings to other strings or anything else
are defined when useful for the purpose of the language. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes.
Thus, given T, an elementary theorem is an elementary >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is true.
That requires more than just a language. Being an elementary theorem means
that a subset of the language is defined as a set of the elementary theorems
a subset of the finite strings are stipulated to be elementary theorems.
or postulates, usually so that it easy to determine whether a string is a
member of that set, often simply as a list of all elementary theorems.
Yes.
https://www.liarparadox.org/Haskell_Curry_45.pdf
Some of these relations between finite strings are
elementary theorems thus are stipulated to be true.
No, that conficts with the meanings of those words. Certain realtions
between strings are designated as inference rules, usually defined so
that it is easy to determine whether a given string can be inferred
from given (usually one or two) other strings. Elementary theorems >>>>>>>>>>>> are strings, not relations between strings.
One elementary theorem of English is the {Cats} <are> {Animals}. >>>>>>>>>>
There are billions of elementary theorems in English of
this form: finite_string_X <is a> finite_string_Y
I am stopping here at your first huge mistake.
They are not elementary theorems of English. They are English expressions
of claims that that are not language specific.
It is hard to step back and see that "cats" and "animals"
never had any inherent meaning.
Those meanings are older that the words "cat" and "animal" and the >>>>>>>> word "animal" existed before there was any English language.
Yet they did not exist back when language was the exact
same caveman grunt.
Nothing is known about languages before 16 000 BC and very little
about languages before 4000 BC.
Words change ofer time so a word does not have well defined beginning. >>>>>> If you regard "cat" as a different word from "catt" 'male cat' and >>>>>> "catte" 'female cat' then it is a fairly new word, if the same then >>>>>> it is older than the English language.
There was point point in time when words came into
existence.
That is not the same time for all words and also depends on what you >>>>>> consider a new word and what just a variant of an existing one. Even >>>>>> now people use sonds that are not considered words and sounds that >>>>>> can be regardeded, depending on one's opinion, words or non-words.
None-the-less if no one ever told you what a "cat" is
it would remains the same in your mind as "vnjrvlgjtyj"
meaningless gibberish.
It is not necessary to be told. I have learned many words simply
observing how other peoöle use them.
Inferring is merely indirectly being told.
No, it is not. It is an entirely different process. Being told is not
possible unless someone else already knows. Observation and inferring
are possible even when nobody knows or no other people are present.
Of course observation of people requires their presence but even then
it is possible observe sometingh about them they don't know themselves.
If you sat in a cave with no outside contact then
word "cat" would remain pure gibberish forever.
In that situation I would worry about other things.
I am trying to explain how finite strings acquire
meaning and you just don't seem to want to hear it.
It is impossible to understand the foundation of
linguistic truth without first knowing its basis
and you just don't want to hear it.
Of course foreign langugage
words are often learned from dictionaries and textbooks that give
translations of the words. You cannot learn words from dfinitions
or being told unless you already know enogh words with menaings
to understand those dfinitions and other explanations.
So starting with the exact same caveman grunt for everything
distinctive meanings for different grunts must be established
or they remain utterly meaningless gibberish.
Without a language there is no way to agree about meanings.
Communication between individuals using these different grunts
cannot occur until both sides know the same established meanings.
Meanings cannot be setablished before a communication occurs.
This all boils down to the ultimate basis of knowledge expressed
as language is stipulated relations between finite strings or
prior to written language stipulated relations between phonemes.
Knowledge is an older and more common phenomenon than language.
knowledge expressed as language
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 159:20:09 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,491 |