Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[PeteOlcott]

Great but you have not boiled that down to its minimal complexity.
Unless you can provide a complete concrete example of Girard's paradox
in a single simple English sentence it is not simple enough to be correctly
evaluated.

As always - show me your evaluator and I will break it for you.

So you cannot meet the challenge.

All of the evaluators ONLY evaluate previously stipulated relations between finite strings.
finite_string_X [stipulated_relation_Y] finite_string_X
"cats" [are_a_type_of] "animal"

[Skepdick]

So you cannot meet the challenge.

Translation: Do my homework.

Since meeting your challenge will require at least a few hours of my undivided attention, I will happily meet it if you pay my regular hourly rate. Where can I send you an invoice?

All of the evaluators ONLY evaluate previously stipulated relations between finite strings.
finite_string_X [stipulated_relation_Y] finite_string_X
"cats" [are_a_type_of] "animal"

I am dying with anticipation on how you are going to any type-checking whatsoever with a statically-typed language (like C++) when all you are accepting as input is finite strings. No marshalling of ANY sort?

How do you tell the difference between the number 3 and the string 3?

[PeteOlcott]

So you cannot meet the challenge.

Translation: Do my homework.

Since meeting your challenge will require at least a few hours of my undivided attention, I will happily meet it if you pay my regular hourly rate. Where can I send you an invoice?

I took me many years to fully realize that the actual essence of the incompleteness theorem
sentence really is: "this sentence is unprovable". It took me several more years to realize
that this sentence is best rejected on the basis of its self-contradictory nature.

I just very recently discovered that all formal systems inherit from their base class
of stipulated relations between finite strings.

That your cannot boil Girard's paradox down into a concrete example of a single
simple English sentence is most likely (as in the 1931 Incompleteness Theorem)
evidence that no one ever has done anything like this because no one has ever
began to understand its basis essence.

In other words I take your answer as simply dodging the question.

[PeteOlcott]

I am dying with anticipation on how you are going to any type-checking whatsoever with a statically-typed language (like C++) when all you are accepting as input is finite strings. No marshalling of ANY sort?

C++ is for all practical purposes Turing Complete.

[Eodnhoj7]

Try and make a very simple concrete example of this.

Yes, basic counting. Anything can be quantified, thus we may observe how a phenomenon exists in time and space, but we never really know its qualities.

The reverse works for qualifying a phenomenon into categories. I may qualify a rose but it does not take into account all the other types of flowers. Or I may qualifies flowers, but it does not take into account other organisms. The same applies for organisms and minerals etc.

Thus we are left with a paradox in the act of measurement and if any unity or synthesis is to be observed we have to look at common denominators.

That is not really paradoxical at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

2. Continual analysis, through the breaking down of axioms, results in complexity through multiple axioms.

3. Precision leads to both ambiguity of extraneous axioms (axioms that are not localizied) and the multiplicity of axioms it produces.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

I would estimate that you are using the term paradox incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

False, it is correct.

In quantifying a phenomenon, the quantifier can mean an infinite number of things. However the quantifer only exists if something can be counted. This requires a quality. Thus in becoming more precise in a quantity, we become less precise in a quality. In counting oranges we lose detail about the qualities of the orange.

The reverse occurs.

In becoming defined in one thing, you become undefined in another. Increasing analysis results in increasing obscurity.

Does at least one existence exist?
Does justice ever exist? How many "justice" exist?

How many ways can one be applied before it is no longer one?

[Skepdick]

C++ is for all practical purposes Turing Complete.

It is. But it doesn't have dynamic types.

Which means you have to know everything about the data you are going to be processing at compile time.

Metaprogramming? Forget it.

[PeteOlcott]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.
[/quote]

My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express
the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.

[PeteOlcott]

C++ is for all practical purposes Turing Complete.

It is. But it doesn't have dynamic types.

Metaprogramming? Forget it.

So you don't understand that Turing complete means that every programming language can be created in C++.

[Skepdick]

I took me many years to fully realize that the actual essence of the incompleteness theorem
sentence really is: "this sentence is unprovable".

The essence of the incompleteness theorem is self-knowledge.

What is the cardinality of my knowledge-base?

The moment you ask (and answer) that question, the answer changes.

In other words I take your answer as simply dodging the question.

Cool. Good luck. Have fun.

[Skepdick]

So you don't understand that Turing complete means that every programming language can be created in C++.

I literally explained this to you 3 posts ago.

The difference is between CAN be implemented and HAS been implemented.

C++ does not have dynamic typing. It CAN have dynamic typing. But it doesn't.
C++ is a statically typed language.

Brainfuck is also Turing-complete. It has a rather poor vocabulary if you ask me.

The fact that you speak only one language (C++) is your problem. You are unfamiliar with any other paradigm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm

[PeteOlcott]

So you don't understand that Turing complete means that every programming language can be created in C++.

I literally explained this to you 3 posts ago.

The difference is between CAN be implemented and HAS been implemented.

C++ does not have dynamic typing. It CAN have dynamic typing. But it doesn't.
C++ is a statically typed language.

Brainfuck is also Turing-complete. It has a rather poor vocabulary if you ask me.

The fact that you speak only one language (C++) is your problem. You are unfamiliar with any other paradigm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm

Forget that I ever said anything about C++. Assume that I am using a Turing machine.

[PeteOlcott]

I took me many years to fully realize that the actual essence of the incompleteness theorem
sentence really is: "this sentence is unprovable".

The essence of the incompleteness theorem is self-knowledge.

What is the cardinality of my knowledge-base?

The moment you ask (and answer) that question, the answer changes.

The knowledge base is always finite. The sum total of all human general knowledge
at any point in time is always finite. The sum total of all human knowledge within
any discourse context is always finite.

I just answered the question and the answer did not change.

[Skepdick]

Forget that I ever said anything about C++. Assume that I am using a Turing machine.

ROFL. You really like re-inventing wheels.

[Skepdick]

The knowledge base is always finite. The sum total of all human general knowledge
at any point in time is always finite. The sum total of all human knowledge within
any discourse context is always finite.

I just answered the question and the answer did not change.

You didn't answer the question. Finite does not mean constant!

The question is like so: How many provable/true statements are there in the Human knowledge-base?

In order to answer the question you might do something like "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM knowledge_base;", and it will give you some finite number. Say 77777.

So then, is this English sentence true or false? There are 77777 facts in the human knowledge base.