A proof of G in F

[PeteOlcott]

I reject your system on the basis that it has no basis.

The basis of my system is that it formalizes the way that analytical truth really works.

How do you know that a cat is not a ten story office building?
(1) Cats are animals is a stipulated truth
(2) Office buildings are not animals is a stipulated truth.
(3) ∴ The set of cats and the set of ten story office buildings are disjoint.

This same process works the same way for every expression of any natural or
formal language that can be totally verified as completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning.

[Skepdick]

The basis of my system is that it formalizes the way that analytical truth really works.

No it doesn't.

It formalizes A way (not THE way) analytical truth works.

[Skepdick]

(3) ∴ The set of cats and the set of ten story office buildings are disjoint.

How do you know?

You can't even construct the necessary predicates!

Given the set of all things give me a predicate/filter which when applied to the set of all things produces only the list of cats.
Given the set of all things give me a predicate/filter which when applied to the set of all things produces only the of 10 storey buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation

Once you produce that predicate we can feed it data and see whether the resulting sets intersect.

[PeteOlcott]

(3) ∴ The set of cats and the set of ten story office buildings are disjoint.

How do you know?

You can't even construct the necessary predicates!

Given the set of all things give me a predicate/filter which when applied to the set of all things produces only the list of cats.
Given the set of all things give me a predicate/filter which when applied to the set of all things produces only the of 10 storey buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation

Once you produce that predicate we can feed it data and see whether the resulting sets intersect.

This takes the place of model theory and defines the complete meaning of every word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... r_science)
Subsets of this already exist in every human mind having language ability.

It is merely the actual structure of all analytical knowledge.
{cat} inherits many of its properties from {animal}.

[Skepdick]

(3) ∴ The set of cats and the set of ten story office buildings are disjoint.

How do you know?

You can't even construct the necessary predicates!

Given the set of all things give me a predicate/filter which when applied to the set of all things produces only the list of cats.
Given the set of all things give me a predicate/filter which when applied to the set of all things produces only the of 10 storey buildings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation

Once you produce that predicate we can feed it data and see whether the resulting sets intersect.

This takes the place of model theory and defines the complete meaning of every word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_ ... r_science)
Subsets of this already exist in every human mind having language ability.

It is merely the actual structure of all analytical knowledge.
{cat} inherits many of its properties from {animal}.

You are confused. As always.

If all animals inherited their properties from {animal} then what distinguishes a cat from a dog - all of their properties are inherited.

And if the meaning of every word is defined then go ahead and define "cat" so that given the set of all things you only pick out the cats.

[PeteOlcott]

{cat} inherits many of its properties from {animal}.

If all animals inherited their properties from {animal} then what distinguishes a cat from a dog - all of their properties are inherited.

That you "interpret" {many} to mean {all} really seems like intentional deception on your part.
Maybe you simply did not bother to pay attention. {cat} inherits {most} of its properties from
{animal} except for those properties that distinguish {cats} from other {animals}.

[Skepdick]

{cat} inherits many of its properties from {animal}.

If all animals inherited their properties from {animal} then what distinguishes a cat from a dog - all of their properties are inherited.

That you "interpret" {many} to mean {all} really seems like intentional deception on your part.
Maybe you simply did not bother to pay attention. {cat} inherits {most} of its properties from
{animal} except for those properties that distinguish {cats} from other {animals}.

Learn to read.

And if the meaning of every word is defined then go ahead and define "cat" so that given the set of all things you only pick out the cats.

There's a set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {animals}.
There's a different set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {dogs}
There's a different set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {tomatoes}
There's a different set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {planets}

Define ALL properties for {cat}. Unless you can do that your system is incomplete. Exactly like Gödel told you.

[PeteOlcott]

There's a set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {animals}.
There's a different set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {dogs}
There's a different set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {tomatoes}
There's a different set of properties which distinguishes {cats} from {planets}

Define ALL properties for {cat}. Unless you can do that your system is incomplete. Exactly like Gödel told you.

All of the above is already defined in the set of analytic knowledge as expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

[Skepdick]

All of the above is already defined in the set of analytic knowledge as expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

If that were the case you should have no problem producing an algorithm which recognizes photos and videos of cats.
If that were the case you should have no problem figuring out which linguistic expressions are describing cats without explicitly mentioning cats.

[Skepdick]

All of the above is already defined in the set of analytic knowledge as expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

If that were true your algorithm should be able to generate ALL the differences between {cats} and {dogs}.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff

Show us.

[PeteOlcott]

All of the above is already defined in the set of analytic knowledge as expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

If that were the case you should have no problem producing an algorithm which recognizes photos and videos of cats.
If that were the case you should have no problem figuring out which linguistic expressions are describing cats without explicitly mentioning cats.

In other words you simply don't have a clue about this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

I define this more sharply to overcome Quine's objections:
(a) Analytic expressions of language can be completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
(b) Synthetic expressions of language require sensory input from the sense organs to be verified as true.

[Skepdick]

All of the above is already defined in the set of analytic knowledge as expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the semantic property of Boolean true.

If that were the case you should have no problem producing an algorithm which recognizes photos and videos of cats.
If that were the case you should have no problem figuring out which linguistic expressions are describing cats without explicitly mentioning cats.

In other words you simply don't have a clue about this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

I define this more sharply to overcome Quine's objections:
(a) Analytic expressions of language can be completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
(b) Synthetic expressions of language require sensory input from the sense organs to be verified as true.

In other words you aren't going to produce a working program that does what you claim it does.

So tired of bullshitters.

Here is an analytic expression: x = x
Please verify its truth-value based on its meaning.

[PeteOlcott]

If that were the case you should have no problem producing an algorithm which recognizes photos and videos of cats.
If that were the case you should have no problem figuring out which linguistic expressions are describing cats without explicitly mentioning cats.

In other words you simply don't have a clue about this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

I define this more sharply to overcome Quine's objections:
(a) Analytic expressions of language can be completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
(b) Synthetic expressions of language require sensory input from the sense organs to be verified as true.

In other words you aren't going to produce a working program that does what you claim it does.

So tired of bullshitters.

Now that we have ChatGPT it is possible to automate the otherwise infeasibly large task
of populating a knowledge ontology with the set of general analytic knowledge.

Your ignorance of the subject matter does not count as any sort of rebuttal.

[Skepdick]

Now that we have ChatGPT it is possible to automate the otherwise infeasibly large task
of populating a knowledge ontology with the set of general analytic knowledge.

Your ignorance of the subject matter does not count as any sort of rebuttal.

ChatGPT uses statistical learning models and provides probabilistic answers, not deterministic/axiomatic ones such as the one you are talking about.

Your mode of reasoning isn't even in the same ballpark.

I am so tired of bullshitters.

[PeteOlcott]

Now that we have ChatGPT it is possible to automate the otherwise infeasibly large task
of populating a knowledge ontology with the set of general analytic knowledge.

Your ignorance of the subject matter does not count as any sort of rebuttal.

ChatGPT uses statistical learning models and provides probabilistic answers, not deterministic/axiomatic ones such as the one you are talking about.

Your mode of reasoning isn't even in the same ballpark.

I am so tired of bullshitters.

Yes you are correct about ChatGPT. It estimates that baby kittens are very probably
not any type of ten story office building. Steve Wolfram was able to interface ChatGPT
to his own system of deductive knowledge such that it based its answers on this
deductive knowledge.

It took Doug Lenat's team at least 700 labor years to manually populate his CYC project
with the tiny subset of analytical knowledge known as common sense. If we are very
generous and say that this is 1/10 of 1% of all knowledge then it would take twice as
long as the existence of Homo Sapians for one person to manually populate the knowledge
ontology that you refer to.