On Aug 18, 6:03 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> are external to any interpretation derived logically from meta-logical
> systems, so they are not "completely" interpreted in such systems, so
> they are not mathematical!
> Of course Structuralism goes to the heart of the subject, i.e. the
> meaning of mathematical theories, while this attempt is at the way of
> speaking about such subjects. I don't know if what is presented here
> makes sense really. I would appreciate any further insights into this
> subject.
> Zuhair
You're using META-LOGIC to mean OUTSIDE of LOGIC
or SEMANTICS of LOGIC.
META-PHILOSOPHY = philosophy of philosophy
META-MATHEMATICS = mathematics of mathematics
META-RULE = rule of rules
META-THEORY = theory of theories
META-ARGUMENT = argument about arguing
META-PLOT = plot of plots
META-SYNTAX = syntax of syntax
META-GOAL = goal of goals
What is LOGIC of LOGIC?
****************************
I've recently devised a theory on semantics of logic.
1. TRUE and FALSE are properties of ACTION SENTENCES, i.e. VERBS.
2. There are 2 types of verb - DO and IS.
3. DO is temporally-quantified with EXIST(TIME): clause DO clause
4. IS is temporally-quantified with ALL(TIME): clause IS clause
5. All verbs can be replaced with either DO or IS conjoined with an
adverb.
> On Aug 18, 6:03 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > are external to any interpretation derived logically from meta-logical
> > systems, so they are not "completely" interpreted in such systems, so
> > they are not mathematical!
> > Of course Structuralism goes to the heart of the subject, i.e. the
> > meaning of mathematical theories, while this attempt is at the way of
> > speaking about such subjects. I don't know if what is presented here
> > makes sense really. I would appreciate any further insights into this
> > subject.
> > Zuhair
> You're using META-LOGIC to mean OUTSIDE of LOGIC
> or SEMANTICS of LOGIC.
> META-PHILOSOPHY = philosophy of philosophy
> META-MATHEMATICS = mathematics of mathematics
> META-RULE = rule of rules
> META-THEORY = theory of theories
> META-ARGUMENT = argument about arguing
> META-PLOT = plot of plots
> META-SYNTAX = syntax of syntax
> META-GOAL = goal of goals
> What is LOGIC of LOGIC?
> ****************************
> I've recently devised a theory on semantics of logic.
> 1. TRUE and FALSE are properties of ACTION SENTENCES, i.e. VERBS.
> 2. There are 2 types of verb - DO and IS.
> 3. DO is temporally-quantified with EXIST(TIME): clause DO clause
> 4. IS is temporally-quantified with ALL(TIME): clause IS clause
> 5. All verbs can be replaced with either DO or IS conjoined with an
> adverb.
What I mean by meta-logical are concepts that are involved in the
explanation, processing and formation and symbolism of logic, for
example "membership" and "set-hood" are clear Meta-logical concepts,
they are involved in semantics of first order logic, also logic use
"natural numbers" so to me "natural number" is in essence a Meta-
logical concept, also Labeling is part of the logical work, you see
this with constants for example, even infinity is actually somehow
assumed in establishing consistency and in various processing of
logic, there is a lot there at the Background of logic. So if we
extend a logical system with symbols that stand for those concepts and
lay down axioms that parallel's those concepts, then the axiomatic
system can be said to be Meta-logical if not even "logical" if the
paralleling is so close. So I think mathematics is intimately related
to logic, it is the next tier after purely logical systems, it
uncovers the details of meta-logical concepts, and I think in this
sense mathematics is in reality Meta-logic extending logic!
Anyhow this subject is not that easy, for example axiom (9) in my
system (Reals Set Theory) doesn't seem to be Meta-Logical
although it would be necessary to study arbitrary sets of Reals and to
study functions and relations defined on Reals, it needs
a meta-logical justification that partitions on sets are singular in
nature which is something highly eligible but I'm not sure if there is
a clear parallel example of using partitions in such mode on a Meta-
Logical level.
there are over 40,000 languages worldwide.
people can count maximum cardinal numbers between 5-8, over those
observable remembered quantites, numbers are most likely referred to
as 'lots' many' . Some cultures will count as quantities, smaller or
larger.
past present and future are also expressed differently in some
languages, forwards, back and time lines may be considered only
relative to that object to which is referred.
is 'do'+'is' = an 'it'?
is 'being' an adjective? or preclude 1st and 2nd person?
The top Verb on the "Constituency Relation" is "IS".
The top Verb on the "Dependency Relation" is an action Verb.
1. TRUE and FALSE are properties of SENTENCES, i.e. VERBS.
2. There are 2 types of verb - DO and IS.
3. DO is temporally-quantified with EXIST(TIME): clause DO clause
4. IS is temporally-quantified with ALL(TIME): clause IS clause
5. All verbs can be replaced with either DO or IS conjoined with an
adverb.
In my system the second sentence would be:
THE TREE DOES ILLUSTRATE
Vs their example THE TREE IS ILLUSTRATING
(they are using IS as a DO verb)
I'm just trying to Map Natural Language to Predicate Logic.
Resolving "FOR ALL TIME - IS" type of sentences may be similar to
resolving Quantifiers in Logic, where any ACTION type of sentence is
Quantified over a period of time that exist(ed).
EXIST(x):TIME "Bolt won the 100m medal (in year x)".
> > On Aug 18, 6:03 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > are external to any interpretation derived logically from meta-logical
> > > systems, so they are not "completely" interpreted in such systems, so
> > > they are not mathematical!
> > > Of course Structuralism goes to the heart of the subject, i.e. the
> > > meaning of mathematical theories, while this attempt is at the way of
> > > speaking about such subjects. I don't know if what is presented here
> > > makes sense really. I would appreciate any further insights into this
> > > subject.
> > > Zuhair
> > You're using META-LOGIC to mean OUTSIDE of LOGIC
> > or SEMANTICS of LOGIC.
> > META-PHILOSOPHY = philosophy of philosophy
> > META-MATHEMATICS = mathematics of mathematics
> > META-RULE = rule of rules
> > META-THEORY = theory of theories
> > META-ARGUMENT = argument about arguing
> > META-PLOT = plot of plots
> > META-SYNTAX = syntax of syntax
> > META-GOAL = goal of goals
> > What is LOGIC of LOGIC?
> > ****************************
> > I've recently devised a theory on semantics of logic.
> > 1. TRUE and FALSE are properties of ACTION SENTENCES, i.e. VERBS.
> > 2. There are 2 types of verb - DO and IS.
> > 3. DO is temporally-quantified with EXIST(TIME): clause DO clause
> > 4. IS is temporally-quantified with ALL(TIME): clause IS clause
> > 5. All verbs can be replaced with either DO or IS conjoined with an
> > adverb.
> What I mean by meta-logical are concepts that are involved in the
> explanation, processing and formation and symbolism of logic, for
> example "membership" and "set-hood" are clear Meta-logical concepts,
> they are involved in semantics of first order logic, also logic use
> "natural numbers" so to me "natural number" is in essence a Meta-
> logical concept, also Labeling is part of the logical work, you see
> this with constants for example, even infinity is actually somehow
> assumed in establishing consistency and in various processing of
> logic, there is a lot there at the Background of logic. So if we
> extend a logical system with symbols that stand for those concepts and
> lay down axioms that parallel's those concepts, then the axiomatic
> system can be said to be Meta-logical if not even "logical" if the
> paralleling is so close. So I think mathematics is intimately related
> to logic, it is the next tier after purely logical systems, it
> uncovers the details of meta-logical concepts, and I think in this
> sense mathematics is in reality Meta-logic extending logic!
> Anyhow this subject is not that easy, for example axiom (9) in my
> system (Reals Set Theory) doesn't seem to be Meta-Logical
> although it would be necessary to study arbitrary sets of Reals and to
> study functions and relations defined on Reals, it needs
> a meta-logical justification that partitions on sets are singular in
> nature which is something highly eligible but I'm not sure if there is
> a clear parallel example of using partitions in such mode on a Meta-
> Logical level.
> The top Verb on the "Constituency Relation" is "IS".
> The top Verb on the "Dependency Relation" is an action Verb.
> 1. TRUE and FALSE are properties of SENTENCES, i.e. VERBS.
> 2. There are 2 types of verb - DO and IS.
> 3. DO is temporally-quantified with EXIST(TIME): clause DO clause
> 4. IS is temporally-quantified with ALL(TIME): clause IS clause
> 5. All verbs can be replaced with either DO or IS conjoined with an
> adverb.
> In my system the second sentence would be:
> THE TREE DOES ILLUSTRATE
is that to mean PERCEPTION I guess
> Vs their example THE TREE IS ILLUSTRATING
> (they are using IS as a DO verb)
well theres stuff like...ummm ahhh?
you would need a reader I guess to have that 'they' so com ports are
open?
and also natural languages?
and theres a phase before that and before 'attention towards a focal
point complied or distinguished'
the phase before that is kinda cummy while a computer might be
screaming 'it,it,it' a human would be making signs or voices and tones
to negotiate proximety? names arn't necessary 'Rover' is an incident
and I think when 'Curiosity' gets its rocks together perhaps those
messages would be sending back indecent messages ? theres some highs
and lows in that message load. Mom said that a bloke said he would buy
her a Rover if they did it together, she was a devoted parent and
wife. i smirked..but what if daddy lost? (perhaps we'd be on Venus)
> I'm just trying to Map Natural Language to Predicate Logic.
> Resolving "FOR ALL TIME - IS" type of sentences may be similar to
> resolving Quantifiers in Logic, where any ACTION type of sentence is
> Quantified over a period of time that exist(ed).
> EXIST(x):TIME "Bolt won the 100m medal (in year x)".
> x=2000, 2004, 2008, 2012
> Herc
ok for this experience I am a frog, and I like deep water, and I have
to dive too slowly. Its cooler lower?
shit I was only making bacon...and they gotten me outta my nest there
I was onto Physics visuals and healing and visual perception, we have
gone thru databases and verbals and 'some' visual recogisable cues and
onto stuff and nonsense past genes
we onto 'unified perception' and genetical heritage
a bland equal for all strarter
and then there are those pesky genes...for instance people with extra
perceptions of colur or taste, and of course in physics we have a
'blind math' in that presently popular 'blue zone' where you have
unifiable agreed math for taste, but
> shit I was only making bacon...and they gotten me outta my nest there
> I was onto Physics visuals and healing and visual perception, we have
> gone thru databases and verbals and 'some' visual recogisable cues and
> onto stuff and nonsense past genes
> we onto 'unified perception' and genetical heritage
> a bland equal for all strarter
> and then there are those pesky genes...for instance people with extra
> perceptions of colur or taste, and of course in physics we have a
> 'blind math' in that presently popular 'blue zone' where you have
> unifiable agreed math for taste, but
A.I. is a big field but it suffers 2 problems.
1/ 1000s of modular approaches that don't work when you join the
modules together
2/ it went off on the wrong track with PROLOG, which was a modular
approach to solve lots of different small problems in the 1
programming language.
There's only 1 algorithm in AI though.
UNIFY ( f(A,b,c) , f(d,E,c) )
ANSWER
A=d
E=b
PROLOG will search all functions until it finds what it needs to solve
any problem.
On Aug 21, 10:06 am, Dhu on Gate <campb...@neotext.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:01:14 -0700, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > so I'll see how slow that is, computers are 1000 times faster than
> > when prolog first came out so a lot of the code is unnecessary.
> Ah, but that's part of the mystique of GOFProlog: it's sooo tight
> by today's standards that everthing else looks like COBOL from an
> assembler POV.
> Dhu
micro is only about 300 lines of code, almost ready to make Unify
recursive.
There are binary indexes on the predicate heads, terms, and VARS.
