1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.ai.philosophy

  • Re: I will write a new paper anchoring my ideas in proof theoreticsemantics

    From Mikko@mikko.levanto@iki.fi to comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic on Sun Apr 19 12:01:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 18/04/2026 16:28, olcott wrote:
    On 4/18/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 17/04/2026 17:34, olcott wrote:
    On 4/17/2026 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 16/04/2026 15:52, olcott wrote:
    On 4/16/2026 3:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 15/04/2026 15:02, olcott wrote:
    On 4/15/2026 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:

    But it is indeed true that I don't believe in conclusions if it >>>>>>>> is not known whether the premises are true. And I don't believe >>>>>>>> that ad-hominem can be a part of a valid argument, although it >>>>>>>> might be a basis to reject a testimnoy.

    Like I said until you become an expert in
    proof theoretic semantics you will remain
    a clueless wonder.

    Not quite. I will remain a wonderer. You will remain clueless.

    It will soon be an easily verified fact that all
    my ideas have always been fully anchored in modern
    Proof Theoretic Semantics.

    Does that "soon" mean less than 50 years ?

     From one month until the end of Summer.
    I have three enormous construction projects
    on my house that also must be done in that
    same time-frame and my car just broke down
    again. Because I am very poor I must do all
    this work myself.

    I will write a new paper that specifically anchors
    each of my ideas point-by-point and item-by-item
    in direct quotes from foundational papers in Proof
    Theoretic Semantics. This is easy to do, yet takes
    time to get it exactly right.

    A good paper would not give any reason to think that the author may
    be stupid or ignorant.

    I am as a matter of objective fact a genius.
    The key thing that I have been missing is
    a succinct set of terms-of-the-art that refer
    to the exact meanings that I intend. Outside
    of PTS there is no such set of terms-of-the-art.

    In such situations it is best to work on problem you want to complete
    first, if possible. If somethen prevents working on that problme then
    on what you want to complete next.

    My 28 year goal has been to make
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
    reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
    The complete structure of this system is now defined
    within ordinary Proof Theoretic Semantics.

    You may still find some other goal more urgent, w.e., getting food
    to postpone starvation by one day.
    --
    Mikko
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2