Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Eodnhoj7]

What I am proposing has the same fundamental acyclic directed graph structure
as a Prolog database. That you continue your rant about circularity after I
pointed this point seems quite foolish.

That prolog database is dependent upon the context of languages outside of it...it is not limited to all languages bowing to prolog.

Please continue ranting your gibberish, beating up your work is a great stress reliever.

Kind of like a pinata, I keep beating it and little fun and interesting facts spill ever where...they make me sick and disgusted like a child who ate too much candy...but hey kids will be kids...

You are the guy that believes 1=0, right?

Take it up with google.

Anyhow:

1) 1 line between two points is halved.

2) This results in 1 line composed of 2 lines through 3 points.

3) This next set of lines is halved resulting in 1 line composed of 4 lines through 5 points.

4) This 1 line as a set of lines is continually halved ad infinitum so if contains an infinite number of points and infinite number of lines. The line thus observes itself as 1, 0 (as infinite 0s are still zero) and infinity (as the one line is composed of infinite lines) simultaneously.

5) 0 effectively observes itself as a function (ie the halving of 1 line through the point) thus necessitating 0 = 1 considering it is quantifiable. If we can count the number of 0's, it is effectively both 1 and infinite units.

[PeteOlcott]

Conceptual truth is a set of stipulated relations between meanings mutually defining
each other semantically comprising the body of conceptual knowledge.

20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.

It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Can you see how this is not circular?

Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat
The directed graph inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology only has upward paths
thus making cycles impossible.

[Eodnhoj7]

20 years on that meaningless word salad. It's funny or sad, pathetic or horrifying.

It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Can you see how this is not circular?

Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat
The directed graph inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology only has upward paths
thus making cycles impossible.

I can see it as both circular and linear simultaneously...I addressed this graph a long time ago.

[PeteOlcott]

It necessitates circularity...I learned this by looking up words in a dictionary within the first few weeks of taking my philosophical studies seriously.

One word leads to another word, which leads back to the original word, while both words lead to a new group of words.

Can you see how this is not circular?

Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat
The directed graph inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology only has upward paths
thus making cycles impossible.

I can see it as both circular and linear simultaneously...I addressed this graph a long time ago.

Do you know what directed graphs are?

[Eodnhoj7]

Can you see how this is not circular?

Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat
The directed graph inheritance hierarchy knowledge ontology only has upward paths
thus making cycles impossible.

I can see it as both circular and linear simultaneously...I addressed this graph a long time ago.

Do you know what directed graphs are?

Do you know what a "direction" is?

[PeteOlcott]

I can see it as both circular and linear simultaneously...I addressed this graph a long time ago.

Do you know what directed graphs are?

Do you know what a "direction" is?

You seem to be having trouble understanding that acyclic directed graphs don't have cycles.

This is an acyclic directed graph:
Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you know what directed graphs are?

Do you know what a "direction" is?

You seem to be having trouble understanding that acyclic directed graphs don't have cycles.

This is an acyclic directed graph:
Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat

And what you fail to understand is that "thing" is an element of all variables prior to "thing"....

Thing <---thing(O) <---thing(A) <---thing(M) <----thing(C)

Thus thing is repeating as cycles.

[PeteOlcott]

Do you know what a "direction" is?

You seem to be having trouble understanding that acyclic directed graphs don't have cycles.

This is an acyclic directed graph:
Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat

And what you fail to understand is that "thing" is an element of all variables prior to "thing"....

Thing <---thing(O) <---thing(A) <---thing(M) <----thing(C)

Thus thing is repeating as cycles.

So you are clueless about what a cycle is in a directed graph as proven by your incorrect graph of a cycle.

[Eodnhoj7]

You seem to be having trouble understanding that acyclic directed graphs don't have cycles.

This is an acyclic directed graph:
Thing<---organism<---animal<---mammal<---cat

And what you fail to understand is that "thing" is an element of all variables prior to "thing"....

Thing <---thing(O) <---thing(A) <---thing(M) <----thing(C)

Thus thing is repeating as cycles.

So you are clueless about what a cycle is in a directed graph as proven by your incorrect graph of a cycle.

A cycle is the same variable directed towards itself, it occurs through recursion. A cycle can be observed linearly either by observing the movement of a clock hand on the sides, or by observing a simple line directed towards the same point it is directed away from (on a line).

Lines and circles can be the same thing.

[PeteOlcott]

And what you fail to understand is that "thing" is an element of all variables prior to "thing"....

Thing <---thing(O) <---thing(A) <---thing(M) <----thing(C)

Thus thing is repeating as cycles.

So you are clueless about what a cycle is in a directed graph as proven by your incorrect graph of a cycle.

A cycle is the same variable directed towards itself, it occurs through recursion. A cycle can be observed linearly either by observing the movement of a clock hand on the sides, or by observing a simple line directed towards the same point it is directed away from (on a line).

Lines and circles can be the same thing.

The recursion part is correct, that a straight line and a circle are the same thing is nuts.

[Eodnhoj7]

So you are clueless about what a cycle is in a directed graph as proven by your incorrect graph of a cycle.

A cycle is the same variable directed towards itself, it occurs through recursion. A cycle can be observed linearly either by observing the movement of a clock hand on the sides, or by observing a simple line directed towards the same point it is directed away from (on a line).

Lines and circles can be the same thing.

The recursion part is correct, that a straight line and a circle are the same thing is nuts.

Not really. A dot going back and forth, or A directed to B directed to A directed to B are both linear and recursive but also circular.

It is the same dynamic movement of a clock on its side: the hand moving from 12 to 6 is observed as (6<-12). The hand moving from 6 to 12 is observed as (12<- 6 <-12).

The same occurs for variables, especially with the apex of a linear graph being an element of all variables which proceed it.

Linear recursion is cyclical.

[Skepdick]

When Quine handles the Liar Paradox without self-reference he does
so incorrectly because the Liar Paradox specifies Self-Reference.

The ONLY way to fully understand things as difficult as the Liar Paradox
is to boil them down to their barest essence, Quine does the opposite of this.

LP := ~True(LP) This one is logically equivalent LP ↔ ~True(LP).
The second one essentially says that it is logically equivalent to not being logically equivalent.

The Formalized Liar Paradox says that LP is materially equivalent to Not True.
The truth table shows that this is self-contradictory.
LP ↔ ¬True(LP)
T---F------F
F---F------T

You are grasping at straws.

The Liar's paradox demonstrates the difficulty in assigning a truth-value to a self-referential sentence.
Quine's paradox demonstrates the difficulty in assigning a truth-value to a NON-self-referential sentence.

In both cases the paradoxes demonstrate the difficulty in assigning truth-values to sentences.

It's natural that you disagree with its "correctness", because it shits all over your theory.

[Skepdick]

The relation of words to each other is handled by predicates, which is merely
another name for Relations:
"="("2 + 3", "5") has its Boolean property assigned the value of TRUE.

Perhaps you are referring to S-expressions?

It's like this: (= (+ 2 3) 5)

But lets stick to your proposed convention for this single example. Which one is "true"?

A: "="("8 ÷ 4(5 - 3)", "1")
B: "="("8 ÷ 4(5 - 3)", "4")

The above is merely a single example to show the gist of what stipulated
relations between finite strings are. Arithmetic would actually be handled
by an algorithm.

Arithmetic IS just an algorithm. Everybody knows that! The problem Quine's paradox demonstrates is that in practice ambiguity in the evaluation order fucks your truth-value. It's about operator precedence. Grammar!

Which one is the correct S-expression for 8 ÷ 4(5 - 3): A or B?
A: (÷ 8 (* 4 (- 5 3))
B: (* ( ÷ 8 4) (- 5 3))

There is no "correct" answer. It's just an ARBITRARY CHOICE.

If your system is to work, then the Mathematical sentence 8 ÷ 4(5 - 3) is not a well-formed formula and it must throw a syntax error.
The Mathematician must either write (8 ÷ 4)(5 - 3); or 8 ÷ (4(5 - 3))

[Skepdick]

1) 1 line between two points is halved.

2) This results in 1 line composed of 2 lines through 3 points.

3) This next set of lines is halved resulting in 1 line composed of 4 lines through 5 points.

4) This 1 line as a set of lines is continually halved ad infinitum so if contains an infinite number of points and infinite number of lines. The line thus observes itself as 1, 0 (as infinite 0s are still zero) and infinity (as the one line is composed of infinite lines) simultaneously.

5) 0 effectively observes itself as a function (ie the halving of 1 line through the point) thus necessitating 0 = 1 considering it is quantifiable. If we can count the number of 0's, it is effectively both 1 and infinite units.

Google for "Arithmetization of geometry"

[Eodnhoj7]

1) 1 line between two points is halved.

2) This results in 1 line composed of 2 lines through 3 points.

3) This next set of lines is halved resulting in 1 line composed of 4 lines through 5 points.

4) This 1 line as a set of lines is continually halved ad infinitum so if contains an infinite number of points and infinite number of lines. The line thus observes itself as 1, 0 (as infinite 0s are still zero) and infinity (as the one line is composed of infinite lines) simultaneously.

5) 0 effectively observes itself as a function (ie the halving of 1 line through the point) thus necessitating 0 = 1 considering it is quantifiable. If we can count the number of 0's, it is effectively both 1 and infinite units.

Google for "Arithmetization of geometry"

Alot of the articles need "bought". Save me the trouble and money, are the sources arguing for or against the above points?