Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Eodnhoj7]

There exists people in the world such that these people anticipate refuting my halting problem proof refutation.

Still failed in context.

There are certain types of people that anticipate refuting your halting problem proof refutation.

You don't seem to understand what linguistic context is.

Under what language context do you make that statement?

[Skepdick]

You don't seem to understand what linguistic context is.

A linguistic context is all the information required (grammar, semantics) for interpreting the intended meaning of symbols.

Now, you could determine that this sentence is grammatically and semantically true "Pete is wasting his time.", but can you infer my intent in saying it?

[PeteOlcott]

You don't seem to understand what linguistic context is.

A linguistic context is all the information required (grammar, semantics) for interpreting the intended meaning of symbols.

http://blog.tnsemployeeinsights.com/wp- ... ocess3.png
The intended meaning is impossible to directly access. The communication process does not allow this.
The best that the communication process allows is the decoding of the stipulated message.

[Skepdick]

The intended meaning is impossible to directly access. The communication process does not allow this.
The best that the communication process allows is the decoding of the stipulated message.

That's pretty silly given Shannon's definition of "communication" - all the possible ways in which one mind can affect another.

I keep having to refer you to Siri, Google Home and Alexa etc. They sure respond to requests and understand intent.

In fact (from the Alexa documentation itself).
Create new INTENT

[PeteOlcott]

The intended meaning is impossible to directly access. The communication process does not allow this.
The best that the communication process allows is the decoding of the stipulated message.

That's pretty silly given Shannon's definition of "communication" - all the possible ways in which one mind can affect another.

I keep having to refer you to Siri, Google Home and Alexa etc. They sure respond to requests and understand intent.

In fact (from the Alexa documentation itself).
Create new INTENT

No mention of minds:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/t ... ntropy.pdf

The ONLY aspects of intent that can be acquired by Siri are those aspects of intent that were encoded in the message.
If a person with a hidden agenda is communicating their intent remains hidden.
Your link did not work.

[Skepdick]

No mention of minds:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/t ... ntropy.pdf

Liar! It's on the 1st page of the book.

https://ibb.co/vLFqxR3
https://ibb.co/xSYBKKj

The ONLY aspects of intent that can be acquired by Siri are those aspects of intent that were encoded in the message.
If a person with a hidden agenda is communicating their intent remains hidden.

Nonsense. The agenda of every speaking mind is always to affect the mind that is listening. The question is: "Affect in what way?"
If the speaking mind has no intent of affecting listening minds - the speaking mind always has a choice to remain silent.

Your link did not work.

Ooops. https://developer.amazon.com/fr/docs/cu ... slots.html

[PeteOlcott]

No mention of minds:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/t ... ntropy.pdf

Liar! It's on the 1st page of the book.

https://ibb.co/vLFqxR3
https://ibb.co/xSYBKKj

You did not cite a book, thus you are a nitwit for calling me a Liar.

[Skepdick]

You did not cite a book, thus you are a nitwit for calling me a Liar.

I cited the author, you incorrectly inferred the transmission medium.

That you were unaware of the book is Argument from ignorance.

That's pretty silly given Shannon's definition of "communication" - all the possible ways in which one mind can affect another.

[PeteOlcott]

You did not cite a book, thus you are a nitwit for calling me a Liar.

I cited the author, you incorrectly inferred the transmission medium.

That you were unaware of the book is Argument from ignorance.

That's pretty silly given Shannon's definition of "communication" - all the possible ways in which one mind can affect another.

Your cite was poor. Unless you cite the book, the paper is the specified default.

[Skepdick]

Your cite was poor. Unless you cite the book, the paper is the specified default.

The truth was poor? No! It is just refusing to fit in that tiny box you are trying to shove it in.

[PeteOlcott]

Your cite was poor. Unless you cite the book, the paper is the specified default.

The truth was poor? No! It is just refusing to fit in that tiny box you are trying to shove it in.

You initially gave a very lousy citation.
The second citation (including the actual page of the book), was perfect.

[Skepdick]

You initially gave a very lousy citation.

It was true. Why does it matter if it was lousy?

[PeteOlcott]

You initially gave a very lousy citation.

It was true. Why does it matter if it was lousy?

To verify that it was actually true, and to see it in context to more fully understand what was meant.
In any case although the point is relevant in some contexts it is not relevant in my context.

Ultimately I am only proving that Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability are incorrect
so subtle nuance of the communication process such as body language are outside of the scope
of my investigation.

The broadest sense of my investigation extends no further than the encoding and decoding of
messages as per the conventional communication process link that I provided.

[Skepdick]

To verify that it was actually true

You said you had an algorithm for that.

The broadest sense of my investigation extends no further than the encoding and decoding of
messages as per the conventional communication process link that I provided.

Well, that's just boring!

You are trying to prove truth is communicable e.g serializable a.k.a marshalling. Obviously all finite objects are serialisable, or the transmission would never end.

[PeteOlcott]

To verify that it was actually true

You said you had an algorithm for that.

The broadest sense of my investigation extends no further than the encoding and decoding of
messages as per the conventional communication process link that I provided.

Well, that's just boring!

You are trying to prove truth is communicable e.g serializable a.k.a marshalling.

Obviously all finite objects are serialisable, or the transmission would never end.

Ultimately I am only proving that Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability are incorrect