Fake Names of Jeffrey Rubard or just a Big Fib ?

[olcott]

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.books/c/cr1eu9M_gQ4

Writing pseudonyms used by Jeffrey Rubard, US, during a period from the
1990s to the 2020s:

(Some names were shared with another individual, or a group of people)

Fiction:
Colum Mccann (not the journalistic writings)
Jacques Roubaud
Paul Auster (less *Country of Last Things*)
John Wray
Jeffrey Lent
Jeff Noon
Andy Weir
Cixin Liu
Frank Tallis
Tom Rob Smith
Wayne Johnston (group)
T. Jefferson Parker (group)
Pascal Mercier
Jamie Ford
Martin Solares
David Leavitt
Adam Rapp (shared)
John A. Heldt
Kim Stanley Robinson
Russell Rowland
Edward Rutherfurd (shared)
Abdelrahman Munif (backdated to Intifada times)
Laszlo Krasznahorkai (shared)
Simon Sebag Montefiore
Francis Spufford
Richard Russo (less *Mohawk*)
Richard Flanagan
Matthew McIntosh
Jonathan Littell
Roberto Bolano
Mark Z. Danielewski
Arturo Perez-Reverte
Brendan Mathews
Yann Martel
Roddy Doyle (less first three novels)
Douglas Stuart

History:
Gordon S. Wood
Alan Taylor
John Ferling (shared, 70s-80s books by another hand)
Jon Meacham
Ted Widmer
Scott Reynolds Nelson
David W. Blight (shared)
David Priestland
Leslie Holmes
Ian Bell
Michael Dobbs (not *House of Cards*)
Robert W. Merry
H.W. Brands (group)
Tristram Hunt (group)
Richard White
Stephen Greenblatt (shared)
Matthew Stewart
Arthur Kempton
RJ Smith
Michael Azerrad
Nelson Lichtenstein
Timothy Egan
Tracy Daugherty
Peter Hall

Sociology:
Craig Calhoun
William Rasch
Randall Collins (group)
Goran Therborn (group)
John Roberts (not John Roberts, US)
Don Ross
Derrick Jensen
Gerd Baumann
Enzo Traverso
John Bellamy Foster
Stathis Kouvelakis
Richard A. Lanham (shared)
Joseph Carroll
Gerd Baumann
Jens Rubart
Hans-Georg Moeller
Michael Bentley
William H. Sewell Jr.
Jeffrey Alexander (less *Theoretical Logic in Sociology*)

Philosophy:
Herman Cappelen https://www.hermancappelen.net/
Tim van Gelder https://timvangelder.com/about/
Peter Carruthers https://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pcarruthers/
Jeff Malpas (group)
Paul S. Macdonald
Manuel Delanda
John Heil
Quentin Meillassoux (group)
Kojin Karatani (group)
R.J. Lipton
Patrick J. Hurley
Peter Godfrey-Smith
Huw Price
John T. Roberts
Evan Thompson
Kevin Lynch
Alexander Stern
Leonard Mlodinow
Ian Hacking
Gerard LeBrun (shared)
Alain Badiou
Ted Sider
Axel Honneth (less *Critique of Power*)
Detlev Claussen
Gilles Dowek
Jean-Luc Nancy
Jean-Pierre Dupuy



--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[Horatio Cornholer]

On 12/29/2022 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> https

Shut up idiot.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Horatio Cornholer"... well, maybe you need to go to pseudonym school.

[olcott]

On 12/30/2022 10:02 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:24:24 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

>> More intelligent people than you were invited to ponder that question, yes.
>> (Have we had this "conversation" before, some years ago?)
>
> The usual question would be: "Can you find another person to 'effectively' lay claim to the pseudonym, who claims to have written the material?"

*From above*

Herman Cappelen https://www.hermancappelen.net/
Tim van Gelder https://timvangelder.com/about/
Peter Carruthers https://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pcarruthers/

Herman Cappelen https://www.hermancappelen.net/
---Making AI Intelligible: Philosophical Foundations

Tim van Gelder https://timvangelder.com/about/

---“Applied epistemologist” would best describe my occupation, except
that few people know what it means.

Peter Carruthers https://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pcarruthers/
---My primary research interests are in philosophy of mind, philosophy
of psychology, and cognitive science. I have worked especially on
theories of consciousness, knowledge of our own propositional attitudes,
the role of natural language in human cognition, and modularity of mind.

They have done some very interesting work it would be very nice to
discuss this work because it is also my own area of primary research.

[Horatio Cornholer]

My company supplies textbooks to pseudonym schools around the country.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Yeah, this is pretty dumb stuff.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Look, maybe I understand the issue..."
But not "reciprocity" with respect to the target of your ire, here.
"???"
There's a word for it in German: Einverständnis.

[olcott]

On 12/30/2022 3:26 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:25:54 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

>> The "undeniable" sophistries grow a bit tiresome, over time.
>> "The imputation of what I am saying, see, is that..."
>> "The reality is what? Seems weird. Seems impossible. Do pictures of the three writers look like the same guy?"
>> "Let me get back to you."
>
> Was there a particular reason you didn't want to talk about the Evan Thompson work? I said it was my favorite, I'm pretty sure.

The three that I referenced are all in my own area of academic interest.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Knowing naivete". "My own area of academic interest" -- you mean you are the actual "crackpot" here?
But about that word "actual"...

[Jeffrey Rubard]

The claim is that I am the *actual* author of texts under these noms des plumes, i.e. "I did the typing".
Your "it could bee" sophistries could "take a walk", but don't. The "joys of filching"...

[olcott]

On 12/30/2022 4:02 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:40:01 PM UTC-8, _ Olcott wrote:

>> On 12/30/2022 3:25 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 8:18:39 AM UTC-8, _ Olcott wrote:

>>> The "undeniable" sophistries grow a bit tiresome, over time.
>>> "The imputation of what I am saying, see, is that..."
>>> "The reality is what? Seems weird. Seems impossible. Do pictures of the three writers look like the same guy?"
>>> "Let me get back to you."

>> In other words this claim that you made is false?

>> Writing pseudonyms used by Jeffrey Rubard, US, during a period from the
>> 1990s to the 2020s:

>> An author that uses pseudonyms could use fake pictures of themselves and
>> could provide a fake back story. In the case above these authors seem
>> to work for various different institutions and could be directly
>> contacted at those varied institutions.

>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>

> Sophistical garbage. "Could it bee?" is replaced by "It could bee"...

Because your words have no equivocation:

Writing pseudonyms used by Jeffrey Rubard, US, during a period from the
1990s to the 2020s:

I will take your double-talk as an admission that you fibbed.

[olcott]

There is no equivocation here:

Writing pseudonyms used by Jeffrey Rubard, US, during a period from the
1990s to the 2020s:

[olcott]

I am very interested in all of the philosophical details required to
create a fully functional human mind using software.

The key starting point of this process is to overturn the Tarski
Undefinability theorem so that a working truth predicate can be defined.

When this is done then Davidson's truth conditional semantics can be
anchored. Until then all AI research is "anchored" in shifting sands.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Yeah no equivocation: your "mind-fu" is, uh, flagging. The "truth-conditions" for evaluating the claims are stated
clearly enough thereby, sure.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

You are a crackpot, then. (Are you going to "flop" and waaah about how
we're insulting your personal cyber-religion, now?)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

I.e.: "To say that he used a name as a writing pseudonym is to say some writing of a substantial bulk by him appeared
under the name, even if the name was used by other people. Is this Rubard responsible for all the writing under many
of these noms des plumes?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

...and why'd you cross-post this here, anyway?

[olcott]

Y-knot ???

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It doesn't have anything to do with theory of computation?

[olcott]

You seem to be enamored with fakes names to the extent of repeatedly
talking to yourself about them on this forum so I chimed in with your
own fake names.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You guys need to work on your legal frauding skills, f'reals."

[olcott]

I never claimed authorship for books I didn't write as you apparently
did above yet perhaps did not do below:

THE AUTHOR SPEAKS
Jeffrey Rubard's guide to the universe of discourse (New Series)
https://theauthorspeaks19.wordpress.com/

[olcott]

Here is a better one, the above only has quotes attributed to others.

The Torso of Humanity: An Interpretation of Being and Time
Preliminary Edition Jeffrey Rubard 2019
https://www.beyng.com/docs/Jeffrey%20Rubard%20-%20torsobookprelim07.pdf

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Dipshit, that's my legal name.
"Wheels within wheels, man."
(For the audience: Maybe not everything is a "long game".)

[olcott]

I am saying that the last linked material seems to have been actually
written by you.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

I've seen that one before, "dipshit". Next up: "And yet..." But life, and US law concerning the topic, doesn't work that way.

[olcott]

Did you write that or not?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Dipshit, it's a famous "ruse". One of the problems, though, is that *you* are more "taken in" by it than others. (Seriously.)

[olcott]

That reply seems to be incoherent.

*DID YOU WRITE THIS OR NOT*

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's a famous scam technique, dumbass.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

What idiot you doesn't understand is, under 'normal contexts', your supposed hip flip is precisely *irrelevant*.
According to US law people simply "wrote what they wrote", under their own name or a pseudonym.
Your '11th-grade-curmudgeon' dimwit shit is beside the point.

[olcott]

More incoherent word-salad as a reply. It is a yes or no question.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

No, it has a "retarded" malicious deception as motive behind it, doesn't it, dipshit?

[olcott]

I did not read many of the words. They did seem coherent.
It only seemed to me to be a discussion of philosophy.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

This is about the dumbest con possible as regards this particular topic of discourse.
"Spotlight on me" -- or the actual and easily comprehensible, if not directly "accessible", facts of the matter.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's one of the lowest, weakest items in the "soft-soap" toolbox.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"We've seen it before."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

...and no, my monograph is not "ghostwritten", fucktard.
"Wait a minute..."
No, we've seen the ruse before, idiot.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"But doesn't that mean..."
It means I am the literal author of the monograph, having typed it --
As I would be with the other material indicated, were my claims to be true.
"Define 'true'."
Damn you, moron.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"No, seriously. Once you have seen the Tarskian theorem in the right light..."
Baby, you're a "crackpot" too. Otherwise, the "normal legal understanding"
of authorship stands: it is just, of course, *unclear* who typed what words.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"It's also just not germane to the newsgroup topic, obvs."

[olcott]

Defining "true" is the essence of the philosophical research over the
last 25 years. There are two different kinds of true:

(a) Analytically true on the basis of the existence of purely semantic
connections to a truth maker.

(b) Empirically true (not the focus of my research) yet requires sense
data from the sense organs in addition to semantic connections to a
truth maker.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Traditional US legal thinking: "The person who must employ theoretical philosophy
in legal reasoning is committing fraud." Comment?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Do you mean your (muddleheaded) jargon-laded philosophizing here to be "helpful"
in considering the issue at hand, or just deceptive obscurantism?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

In what sense is the traditional idea of authorship, "composed the MS. upon which
the volume was directly based", improved by your philosophical fashion-postures here?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

So... the original message commented upon (in another newsgroup, where the conversation
would be somewhat sensible) makes a tremendous number of authorship claims of this
kind in a fairly dubious register. "Explaining it away" with aren't-I-smart-oh-wait-I'm-real
roundabout tricks is obviously just a scam, considering. "I knew that." Maybe not like it is...

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I'm sorry, that couldn't possibly be..."
Yeah, keep telling reality who's boss.

[olcott]

Are you an author of anything besides replies to these posts?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

These kind of comments eventually become illegal "instruction". You knew that, right?
You're "directly contradicting" claims to exactly that effect. (It secretly has more of
a "dipshit" feel than you know, TBH.)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's the sort of thing a stunted, narcissistic quasi-teenager mind would think was "real hip".

[Jeffrey Rubard]

A la: "Butt, I don't know what to make of..."
You don't know much.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Or: the issue to consider, rather than the fruity "hand-waving" to adulate, would be of the form just stated by me.

[olcott]

Is that a yes or a no to my question about your authorship of anything

[Jeffrey Rubard]

This is a tiresome ruse most have seen before. "Again, can you prove the existence of the external world prior to the year 2000?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Again, you could "which see" what I've already said, or continue acting like a heavily entitled 11th grade "smart-aleck" could disprove the Copernican theory of the Solar System by "reasoned argument".

[olcott]

I already thought of that in 1993 with my five-minute ago hypothesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#:~:text=The%20five%2Dminute%20hypothesis%20is,other%20signs%20of%20history%20included.

I remember creating the five-minute hypothesis in 1993 and a couple of
years later Bertrand Russell took retroactive credit for it. The
evidence that I am the actual author is that Bert's version lacks a key
detail:

Unless the universe was created in a single instant the mind would have
subconscious traces of memory of the universe coming into existence and
this would be the tell-tale sign.

Every other detail is exactly the same as my 1993 version. My purpose in
this thought experiment was to determine the analytical limits of
logically justified certainty.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

I have seen... exactly this "folderol", Bertrand Russell and 1993 and all, some many years ago.
(As a constituent part of this "never heard of ya" scam, I suppose it was not new even at that time.)
It is... perfectly nonsensible, a "pique" refutation of the interest of considering "possibly" the most prolific book writer in English known.
If your interest were to be "piqued" (by considering, say, the implicit power and resources of the person putting it forward), you'd go with it.
Otherwise, it does seem like that 11th-grade smart-aleck has grown up... and gotten a few "bumps", including from snorting a few too many "rails".
Just meaningless garbage. "Of course." That would be reasoned two ways, if you could get the idea.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

That is "what is said" in what I wrote. If most of the claims "penciled out", I would be the most prolific nongenre writer in English.
"That can't even be."
Oh, that wonderful ambiguity which has so been our recent reality. Do you mean that it's "not possible" for there to be a "lexically" most prolific author,
or that it really pisses you off and you might try to "do something about it"? I could imagine the second, and I don't think you can imagine the first,
but hey... "weasel-words"!
"What's with 'lexical'?"
It's a concept from CS.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Cat got your tongue?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

A Voice Abroad: "I'm sorry, it'sjust that it's so patently ridiculous a suggestion."
This is true, but the hostility to realist epistemology of a garden-variety sort from "Maybees" is really unfortunate in other ways.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Otherwise, it is "as I tell it": a person composed the manuscript of a book or not, and that person is the book's author "in reality",
no matter how many high-energy harrowings or "I hope you'll see it like this" verbal ruses are deployed.

[olcott]

On 1/5/2023 3:15 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 8:27:06 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:03:55 PM UTC-8, _ Olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/3/2023 6:04 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:24:18 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:45:49 PM UTC-8, _ Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/1/2023 6:38 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:12:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 11:46:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

>>>>>>>>> You work in an "equivocation", huh, so you're too "smarts" to reason?
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, everybody loves a ton of that. "Begone."
>>>>>>>> "Pouring a ton of sophistical reasoning on people? It was sophistical, and thusly of little to no value.
>>>>>>>> At the end of this? People are free to reason using sound principles and factual grounds, or not."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "What are those, please?"
>>>>>>> Why, that's the reason to *actually* study formal logic, rather than "regurgitate" Grade-A hoaxes about pseudo-scientific views you couldn't really hold!
>>>>>> Formal logic diverges from correct reasoning in that formal logic shows
>>>>>> that some expressions of language that do not have semantic connections
>>>>>> to their truth maker are still construed as true.

>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>>>>> Fuckin' retard.
>>>>
>>>> "There is no logic because me."
>>>> I... guess... you'd... think that... right?
>>> This diverges from the correct reasoning of Aristotle's syllogism:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

>>> --
>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>> Dipshit, you scammers always post that (like your "Bertrand Russell" thing).
>> *Ex falso quodlibet* is not one of the major principles of logic,
>> or you wouldn't really like to know how it works if you must insist it is.
>
> Like so: "From a contradiction, infer anything you like" really means "inconsistent argumentation must be discarded".

That is not what it means, I wish you were right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_string

When we look at all of logic as string transformation rules then
this is correct reasoning: (A & ~A) <-> Empty_String

The advantage of construing logic as finite string transformation
rules is that math and computation can be construed as equivalent.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

You're a damn fool.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(And I've "heard that one before". Really maybe come up with some new cons, eh, guys?)

[olcott]

On 1/5/2023 7:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:54:43 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:53:20 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

>>> You're a damn fool. "Math and computation can be construed as equivalent."
>> The way that really works:
>> 1) Your discourse is inconsistent, "internally self-defeating", so reliable consequential inferences cannot use it.

Yes that would be the correct reasoning that the principle of explosion
seems to ignore.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"But I already said that mathematics and computability were the same."
Dipshit.

[olcott]

On 1/6/2023 10:30 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

> Right. So you've talked a lot of garbage (which I have literally seen before -- it wasn't quite in 1993 itself, but it was
> some many years ago) and "the facts are the facts" all the same.


Some "facts" may be anchored in false assumptions of the nature of
reality. Those are on the empirical side of the analytical versus
empirical truth. {The assumption of philosophical materialism}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Analytical truth is entirely based on:
(a) Expressions of language that have been stipulated to have the
semantic value of Boolean true. Example: {cats} <are> {animals}
OR
(b) Have been derived by applying truth preserving operations to (a) or
the output of (b)

Example:
{cats} <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {Living things}
∴ {cats} <are> {{Living things}

[olcott]

Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to this rule.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it is not
computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture

[Richard Damon]

Right, and since the Godel Sentence G says that there does not exist a
number g that meets a specific primitive recursive relationship, and we
can show that:

0 does not meet that relationship
1 does not meet that relationship
2 does not meet that relationship
...
n does not meet that relationship (from the meta-theory)
...

and in the meta-theory we can show that in the theory we could continue
this sequence forever (from the structure of that specific primative
recursive relatonship), we thus have an INFINITE set of truth
persevering operations that show that G is True.

Since a Proof is a finite set of truth perserving operations, we do not
have a proof of G in the Theory, thus, we can say that the statement G
is True in F, but not Provable in F.

This means that ANY theory, capable of having such a corresponding
Meta-Theory created, which turns out to only need a reasonably complete
definition of mathematics of the Natural Numbers, has a proposition in
it that is True but not Provable.

This is the DEFINITION of what an "Incomplete" logic system is, so any
logic system that can support enough of the Theory of Natural Numbers to
support this Meta-Theory, is Incomplete.

Meaning, there exist statements in the Theory that ARE True but we can
not prove, and thus can not KNOW them to be True just by the Theory.

[olcott]

If G is not provable in F then there is a sequence of truth preserving
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F, otherwise G is
not true in F.

[Richard Damon]

No, not being provable and not being True are different things.

I SHOWED the (infinte) set of truth preserving operation in F that shows
that G is TRUE, so it can not be not True.

Unless you point out where the error is in that set of operations, you
have nothing to stand on to claim that G is not true.

Yes, the fact that we can show in Meta-F that G is not provable in F,
does say that there must actually be a (infinite) set of steps in F that
would show it, but we just don't know them at the moment, so just from F
we can't KNOW that G is unprovable.

In fact, from Meta-F we KNOW that there can not be a finite set of
connections in F to prove that G is unprovable, because that same set of
connections would (by the rules of the meta-Theory) create a value of g
that satisfies the requirement making G false, while at the same time
being the proof that G is True.

So, we can say that in F, not only is G True, and unprovable, but it is
impossible to actually PROVE (in F) it is unprovable (in F).

[olcott]

If there is no finite or infinite sequence of truth preserving
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F then there is no
semantic connection in F from G to its truth maker in F, thus G is not
true in F.

[Richard Damon]

The statement "G is Not Provable in F" and the statement "G is True in
F" are different statments, so are not based on the same set of operations.

So, your statement doesn't hold and you show your stupidity.

I SHOWED you the infinite set of connections that proves that G is True.

Until you find an error in that, you are just admitting to being a liar
to say that no such connection exists.

If you logic says that no such connect can exist, when it has been shown
to exist, that PROVES that the logic systmm you are working in is INCORRECT.

You life work is thus flushed down the drain, as it asserts a FALSEHOOD.

[olcott]

None-the-less if there is no semantic connection in F from G in F to its
truth maker in F then G is not true in F.

[Richard Damon]

** From the Truht Makers to the Statement **

You keep saying it backwards, truth FLOWS from the Truth Makers TO the
statements, that is the nature of Truth Perserving. You can't "preserve"
something from a posistion that it hasn't been established from yet.

And unless you can SHOW that such a connection does not exist, you can't
claim that the statement is not true.

The fact I haven't shown the connection in F to the statement that G is
not provable doesn't mean that there isn't one.

I have showed how in META-F, that we can can show that there is a proof
of the unprovability of G in F, and thus I have proved that such an
INFINITE sequence of steps must exist in F, even if I can not show it in F.

You are still confusing the ability to assert a statement about the
provabilty of a statement with the ability to assert something about the
statement it self.

Do you agree that there IS an (infinte) set of statments that connect to
the statement G showing it to be true? The statements being the fact
that if we evaluate that specific primative recursive relationship (a
fintie operation) for every number n that exists, we WILL find that it
doesn't hold, and thus it is established that no number g exists to
satisfy the relationship, and thus G is True?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You can't say this in a courtroom."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Also: Truthmaker theory is part of philosophy of language, not formal logic per se, and you do not even appear to understand it 'as is'."

[olcott]

It we want to show that {cats} are {living things}
and we know that {cats} <are> {animals} and
{animals} <are> {living things} then

{cats} are {living things} must be connected to its truth maker
{cats} <are> {animals} and {animals} <are> {living things}
Prolog calls this back-chaining.

Backward chaining (or backward reasoning) is an inference method
described colloquially as working backward from the goal. It is used in
automated theorem provers, inference engines, proof assistants, and
other artificial intelligence applications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining

The conclusion {cats} are {living things}
is validated on the basis of the facts
{cats} <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {living things}
that derive it.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Do you mean like the resolution calculus?"
He doesn't.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"For the audience": This last part is the first item one hadn't seen *verbatim* in previous "editions" of this con years and years ago (figure as 10+ years here).
Could you be just a *little* bit less credulous, okay?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"My 1993 result" and the misunderstanding of ex falso quodlibet are word-for-word not new.

[Richard Damon]

Right, not "BACK" as you are tracing the chain from the END to the begining.

>
> Backward chaining (or backward reasoning) is an inference method
> described colloquially as working backward from the goal. It is used in
> automated theorem provers, inference engines, proof assistants, and
> other artificial intelligence applications.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining

Right, so you are looking BACKWARDS along the chain that make the
statement true.

>
> The conclusion {cats} are {living things}
> is validated on the basis of the facts
>  {cats} <are> {animals}
>  {animals} <are> {living things}
> that derive it.
>
>

Right, so the chain of statements START at the initial Truth Makers,

{cats} <are> {animals}
and
{animals} <are> {living things}

and the rule that if <a> <is a member of> <b> and <b> <is a member of>
<c> then <a> <is a member of> <c> (a proper interpreation of your <are>
relationship, which disambiquats it)

Thus we get to the statement {cats} are {living things}

The connections that show the statement derive FROM the know truth and
flow TO the conclusion.


This becomes more obvious if you work with something that requires two
deductive steps, not just one.

IF we use the statements

1) {cats} <are> {mammels}
2) {mammels} <are> {animals}, and
3) {animals} <are> {living things}

The chain is:
1) {cats} <are> {mammels}
2) {mammels} <are> {animals}
----------------------------
4) {cats} <are> {animals}


4) {cats} <are> {animals}
3) {animals} <are> {living things}
----------------------------
5) {cats} <are> {living things}


You can not directly back chain from that final statement, as you don't
have statement 4 established yet to use.



And yoi are just distracting yourself from the FUNDAMENTAL error you
made when you claimed that the fact that I didn't give a chain that
showed the truth of the statement G is not Provable in F meant that
somehow the fact thst G is True is F isn't true, even though I DID
provide the (infinte) set of statements that showed it.

You are just showing you don't have anything to stand on in your claims.

YOU HAVE WASTED YOUR LIFE and will be remembered for that FAILURE.

[olcott]

In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard
correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or
equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or
formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between
computer programs and mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence

[olcott]

I am creating/discovering the elemental nature of analytical truth
itself. This is an overarching idea that applies all all ideas, thus not
limited to any specific subject domain.

When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
that make this expression true.

[olcott]

When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
that make this expression true.

>>

>> Backward chaining (or backward reasoning) is an inference method
>> described colloquially as working backward from the goal. It is used
>> in automated theorem provers, inference engines, proof assistants, and
>> other artificial intelligence applications.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
>
> Right, so you are looking BACKWARDS along the chain that make the
> statement true.
>

When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms

that make this expression true.

>>
>> The conclusion {cats} are {living things}
>> is validated on the basis of the facts
>>   {cats} <are> {animals}
>>   {animals} <are> {living things}
>> that derive it.
>>
>>
>
> Right, so the chain of statements START at the initial Truth Makers,
>
> {cats} <are> {animals}
> and
> {animals} <are> {living things}
>

No when the question is:
Is this expression true: {cats} <are> {living things}

In the case we are starting with {cats} <are> {living things}
and from this working backwards to its natural language axioms.

[Richard Damon]

And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between
Provable / Knowable and True.

Note, not all of Mathematics deals with things that are "Computable",
and in fact, some parts (like Computation theory) ask WHICH things in
Mathematics are in fact computable.

[Richard Damon]

Which means you have the theory BACKWARDS, as the connections flow FROM
the axioms of the system TO the statement to be decided.

Going in the reverse direction, you can't say ANYTHING about the web of
connections you are exploring until it fully reaches all the needed
axioms that establish it.

If you start at the axioms, and move forward, as long as you use true
statments and valid arguements, every step is know to be true.

One problem with the backwards method is you can reach a statement that
you THINK should be true, and thus assume you have actually reached
Truth, but if that statement isn't actually proven, you haven't.

[olcott]

On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the conclusion to
be proved to its premises.

True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its true premises.

Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.

> Note, not all of Mathematics deals with things that are "Computable",
> and in fact, some parts (like Computation theory) ask WHICH things in
> Mathematics are in fact computable.

Ah so the Goldbach Conjecture is outside the scope of mathematics in the
case of the requirement of an infinite proof.

[Richard Damon]

So what is the difference between the words "semantic connection" and
{Truth Maker}

making up terminology is jsut a sign of being deceptive.

>
>>>
>>> The conclusion {cats} are {living things}
>>> is validated on the basis of the facts
>>>   {cats} <are> {animals}
>>>   {animals} <are> {living things}
>>> that derive it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, so the chain of statements START at the initial Truth Makers,
>>
>> {cats} <are> {animals}
>> and
>> {animals} <are> {living things}
>>
>
> No when the question is:
> Is this expression true: {cats} <are> {living things}

Right, so how do you SHOW that.

>
> In the case we are starting with {cats} <are> {living things}
> and from this working backwards to its natural language axioms.
>

Right, but you don't actually SHOW anything until you start with know
ntrue statements and work along the chain of valid logical inferences to
reach the conclusion.

That is why proof (after stating the goal) beign with what truths they
are going to use as there basis, and move step by step to the statement
they want to prove,

That way they are showing that every step is actually a truth.

Yes, if FINDING the proof, you may use your goal to help you find what
you want to use, but the actual proof will run from known truth via
valid logic to the statement to prove.

[olcott]

When proving that {cats} <are> {living things}
and we only know that
{cats} <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {living things}
we must start with {cats} <are> {living things}
and work backwards, every automated theorem prover works this way.

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

[olcott]

Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
any.

[Richard Damon]

Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.

True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.

Unprovable just means no FINITE chain exists, so still allows for the
infinite chain (which I showed).

>
>> Note, not all of Mathematics deals with things that are "Computable",
>> and in fact, some parts (like Computation theory) ask WHICH things in
>> Mathematics are in fact computable.
>
> Ah so the Goldbach Conjecture is outside the scope of mathematics in the
> case of the requirement of an infinite proof.
>

???? I didn't say that. You are showing you don't know the meaning of words.

How does that fact that the Goldbach Conjecture might requiring an
infinte proof put it outside of the scope of Mathematics?

I said that NOT ALL MATHEMATICS is based on things COMPUTABLE.

That means that SOME MATHEMATICS is base don things that are NOT COMPUTABLE.

In fact, some of these unknown conjecture create whole branches of logic
which create theories of the form: If x conjecture is [True/False] then
y conjecture is [True/False] exploring the world of "possible" universes.

[Richard Damon]

On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
> any.
>

If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.

You will have no idea if any of the things you are think of are actually
true until you tie up all your connections to known truth.

Much better to start from what is know, and see what you can get to from
there.

One big advantage is that maybe you can get close, and see that your
original sentence was slightly off, based on what you can actually prove.

Starting at the end and going backwards, give no option for that.


Do you actually have an sources for a real formal proof that has been
published in a quality source that works the way you are talking?

That argues startring from the conclusion and works its way to the known
truths.

[Richard Damon]

Nope, not one MUST, but one can.

Note, "Back Chaining" works primarily is simpler systems.

As I remember, it is really mostly usable in First Order logic system
(which seems to be the only ones you understand).

[olcott]

True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.

[Richard Damon]

Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE* requires
a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...

You just don't seem to know what you are saying.

TRUE requires a connection, finite or infinite.

PROVABLE / KNOWABLE requires a finite connectiopn.

Your brain is soo broken you have lost the ability to keep these two
seperate.

[olcott]

Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.

[olcott]

On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
>> any.
>>
>
> If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
>

That is the way that inference works.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.