Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
(a) John owns a brick house
(b) John owns a house
(c) John owns a counterfeit Monet
(d) John owns a Monet
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Houses
(Owns(JOHN, y) & Construction_Material(y, BRICK))
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Houses
(Owns(JOHN, y)
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Work-of-Art
∃!MONET ∈ Famous_Artists
∃!MONET_ART ∈ Artwork(MONET)
(Owns(JOHN, y) & ~Authentic(y, MONET_ART))
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Work-of-Art
∃!MONET ∈ Famous_Artists
∃!MONET_ART ∈ Artwork(MONET)
(Owns(JOHN, y) & Authentic(y, MONET_ART))
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF
(b) John owns a house
(c) John owns a counterfeit Monet
(d) John owns a Monet
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Houses
(Owns(JOHN, y) & Construction_Material(y, BRICK))
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Houses
(Owns(JOHN, y)
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Work-of-Art
∃!MONET ∈ Famous_Artists
∃!MONET_ART ∈ Artwork(MONET)
(Owns(JOHN, y) & ~Authentic(y, MONET_ART))
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Work-of-Art
∃!MONET ∈ Famous_Artists
∃!MONET_ART ∈ Artwork(MONET)
(Owns(JOHN, y) & Authentic(y, MONET_ART))
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless ... _furiously
The only way that we can know that the above sentence is a truth bearer with the semantic value of Boolean false is a type mismatch error between its tokens.
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
The only way that we can know that the above sentence is a truth bearer with the semantic value of Boolean false is a type mismatch error between its tokens.
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
Is your "∃!" stand for "Some particular" versus "some" unspecified?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:55 pm (a) John owns a brick house
(b) John owns a house
(c) John owns a counterfeit Monet
(d) John owns a Monet
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Houses
(Owns(JOHN, y) & Construction_Material(y, BRICK))
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Houses
(Owns(JOHN, y)
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Work-of-Art
∃!MONET ∈ Famous_Artists
∃!MONET_ART ∈ Artwork(MONET)
(Owns(JOHN, y) & ~Authentic(y, MONET_ART))
∃!JOHN ∈ Male_Humans
∃!y ∈ Work-of-Art
∃!MONET ∈ Famous_Artists
∃!MONET_ART ∈ Artwork(MONET)
(Owns(JOHN, y) & Authentic(y, MONET_ART))
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF
As to semantics, while Predicate Calculus adds quantification and predicates, what are you defining as the 'semantic meaning' fundamentally? Is your system postulating variables (then proving constants) or constants (then proving variables)?
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
The same way that it works in the human mind it can be expressed in Higher Order Logic:Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:23 pm Is your "∃!" stand for "Some particular" versus "some" unspecified?
As to semantics, while Predicate Calculus adds quantification and predicates, what are you defining as the 'semantic meaning' fundamentally? Is your system postulating variables (then proving constants) or constants (then proving variables)?
All [Conceptual knowledge]** is merely the connections between concepts that can be
expressed as connections between finite strings.
**Conceptual knowledge: The set of knowledge that can be completely expressed using language.
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
Pete, you don't even know what Higher Order logic is. All of your expressions are 1st/2nd order expressions.
Whatever you think is a "high order logic" there is a higher order logic than that. The tower of abstraction is infinitely high.
Rather than wasting another 12000 hours of your life, I can recommend a $120 book for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Order-Com ... 3662479915
While you are waiting for your book to arrive, read this paper. In the first 5 pages it offers you a model of semantics that is 4-layers nested - way more sophisticated, and more "accurate" than anything you are currently proposing.
That's ironic, because tacit knowledge is algorithmic. Know-how.
Whatever you think is a "high order logic" there is a higher order logic than that. The tower of abstraction is infinitely high.
Rather than wasting another 12000 hours of your life, I can recommend a $120 book for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Order-Com ... 3662479915
While you are waiting for your book to arrive, read this paper. In the first 5 pages it offers you a model of semantics that is 4-layers nested - way more sophisticated, and more "accurate" than anything you are currently proposing.
So that's excludes all tacit knowledge then?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:43 pm **Conceptual knowledge: The set of knowledge that can be completely expressed using language.
That's ironic, because tacit knowledge is algorithmic. Know-how.
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
I know that I know that I know that I am correct.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:30 am Pete, you don't even know what Higher Order logic is. All of your expressions are 1st/2nd order expressions.
Whatever you think is a "high order logic" there is a higher order logic than that. The tower of abstraction is infinitely high.
Rather than wasting another 12000 hours of your life, I can recommend a $120 book for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Order-Com ... 3662479915
While you are waiting for your book to arrive, read this paper. In the first 5 pages it offers you a model of semantics that is 4-layers nested - way more sophisticated, and more "accurate" than anything you are currently proposing.
So that's excludes all tacit knowledge then?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:43 pm **Conceptual knowledge: The set of knowledge that can be completely expressed using language.
That's ironic, because tacit knowledge is algorithmic. Know-how.
No one has been able to even begin to form any counter-example showing that I am not correct.
Everyone merely presumes that I am incorrect and then proceeds on that basis.
My correct refutation of the Halting Problem proofs will change all that.
Minimal Type Theory has an [assign alias] operator that can assign a whole expression to a variable.
This variable can be quantified over in another expression, ad infinitum.
When I use the term conceptual knowledge I am referring to all knowledge that can be expressed using language.
You read what I was saying backwards.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
I can't even figure out what you are saying. One has to know what you are saying first in order to "presume [you] incorrrect" BEFORE preceding.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:07 pm I know that I know that I know that I am correct.
No one has been able to even begin to form any counter-example showing that I am not correct.
Everyone merely presumes that I am incorrect and then proceeds on that basis.
My correct refutation of the Halting Problem proofs will change all that.
Minimal Type Theory has an [assign alias] operator that can assign a whole expression to a variable.
This variable can be quantified over in another expression, ad infinitum.
When I use the term conceptual knowledge I am referring to all knowledge that can be expressed using language.
You read what I was saying backwards.
When I asked you about how you interpret your rationale as "semantic", I am confused because you are trying to use variables as constants but cannot do this by assigning meaning to its contents, just like "propositional calculus" cannot do. "Predicate logics" only add relations of propositions with quantified generalities. And though these can be 'true' of reality regarding logic itself, it doesn't speak of the literal meaning of the propositions conceived.
What is your goal here? What is your view say about the meaning of class terms and meaning that isn't already understood by the symbolic logics already developed?
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
It's not our job to give you a counter-example, Pete. That's your job.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:07 pm I know that I know that I know that I am correct.
No one has been able to even begin to form any counter-example showing that I am not correct.
If you can't prove yourself wrong then your idea is not even wrong.
If you don't take that as an example of fallacious reasoning, then I have nothing for you. You aren't a scientist. You are a dumb philosopher.
How would you determine whether any particular linguistic expression expresses "conceptual knowledge" or not?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:07 pm When I use the term conceptual knowledge I am referring to all knowledge that can be expressed using language.
Here is a linguistic expression: I know that apples are delicious.
It is clearly expressed in language. Is that "conceptual knowledge" or not?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
I think you're kinda being a "skep-dick" here by calling him 'dumb'.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:30 pmIt's not our job to give you a counter-example, Pete. That's your job.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:07 pm I know that I know that I know that I am correct.
No one has been able to even begin to form any counter-example showing that I am not correct.
If you can't prove yourself wrong then your idea is not even wrong.
If you don't take that as an example of fallacious reasoning, then I have nothing for you. You aren't a scientist. You are a dumb philosopher.
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
It's an assertion. A statement of fact. Not an insult.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:33 pm I think you're kinda being a "skep-dick" here by calling him 'dumb'.
The decision-procedure I used to assert his "dumbness" was explicitly stated.
Leave your feelings at the door.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
But to insult his point as 'dumb', you require being certain to understand what the confusion is and know why his view is not being 'smart'. If you just don't understand him, then just say that. Own your own role in understanding/misunderstanding what he stated without implying yourself that you know better. Because then you are reversing the onus on you to prove WHY you know he is not being smart.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:35 pmIt's an assertion. A statement of fact. Not an insult.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:33 pm I think you're kinda being a "skep-dick" here by calling him 'dumb'.
The decision-procedure I used to assert his "dumbness" was explicitly stated.
Leave your feelings at the door.
[I'm turning your 'dumb' into 'not smart' here to accord to your claim of it not being an insult. Then you MEAN that you do not think he is being practically correct in his approach where 'smart' means "practically correct or effective behavior". THAT would not come across insulting and NOT steal his his onus to explain more clearly for you.]
-
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
Within the context of your expression: "know" means subjective assessment.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:30 pmIt's not our job to give you a counter-example, Pete. That's your job.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:07 pm I know that I know that I know that I am correct.
No one has been able to even begin to form any counter-example showing that I am not correct.
If you can't prove yourself wrong then your idea is not even wrong.
If you don't take that as an example of fallacious reasoning, then I have nothing for you. You aren't a scientist. You are a dumb philosopher.
How would you determine whether any particular linguistic expression expresses "conceptual knowledge" or not?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:07 pm When I use the term conceptual knowledge I am referring to all knowledge that can be expressed using language.
Here is a linguistic expression: I know that apples are delicious.
It is clearly expressed in language. Is that "conceptual knowledge" or not?
If we use the most literal meaning of {know} meaning that anyone not liking apples
is logically incorrect in their dislike of apples then your sentence becomes false.
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
Pay attention..... IT IS NOT AN INSULT.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:49 pmBut to insult his point as 'dumb'Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:35 pmIt's an assertion. A statement of fact. Not an insult.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:33 pm I think you're kinda being a "skep-dick" here by calling him 'dumb'.
The decision-procedure I used to assert his "dumbness" was explicitly stated.
Leave your feelings at the door.
It is an assertion.
Because it is not even wrong. It's not only untestable, but it is also unfalsifiable.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:49 pm you require being certain to understand what the confusion is and know why his view is not being 'smart'.
I said that. How did you miss it?
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
READ and interpret the rest in context. You only save grace of it NOT being an insult if you mean that "YOU do not understand what he is saying."Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:55 pmPay attention..... IT IS NOT AN INSULT.
It is an assertion.
The term, "not smart" may be appropriate. But then you still have the onus to prove WHY for ASSERTING such a conclusive belief unexpressed.
Re: Formalizing Natural Language Semantics
Yes Pete. All knowledge is subjective because all assertions are subjective.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:52 pm Within the context of your expression: "know" means subjective assessment.
You lack a formal definition of "literal meaning" - that's the very thing you are claiming to be formalizing here, right!?!?
Please don't bullshit me. It is logically, syntactically, grammatically and semantically correct.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:52 pm is logically incorrect in their dislike of apples then your sentence becomes false.
Empirically demonstrable.
https://repl.it/repls/PinkClientsideBlock
Code: Select all
from universe import *
assert Skepdick.likes(Apples)
assert Skepdick.likes(Peaches)
assert not Skepdick.likes(Oranges)
print('All assertions are TRUE')
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.