Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #141687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-06-23 09:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 367 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 14:35 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-19 10:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 07:46 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-19 20:28 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-19 13:49 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 15:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-19 21:05 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:30 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 21:35 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 23:04 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 21:40 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 11:05 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-20 11:40 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 14:02 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:30 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:03 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:03 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:02 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 09:14 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:16 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:57 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:16 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:13 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:01 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:28 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:39 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:29 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 11:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:19 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:09 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:43 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:17 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 07:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:16 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:48 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:54 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 10:54 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 10:26 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 08:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 22:52 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:43 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 14:18 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 20:44 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:39 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:36 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:32 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:46 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:49 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:40 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 12:45 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:23 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:14 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:02 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:19 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:34 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 21:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 21:16 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:05 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 14:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 10:50 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:41 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:17 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:41 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:09 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 12:52 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:25 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:18 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:34 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:18 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:23 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:20 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:13 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:21 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:19 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 19:48 +0000
Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:19 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:34 -0400
Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:11 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 19:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:29 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:06 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:28 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:32 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:38 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:48 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:51 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:01 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 21:43 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:53 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 20:04 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 15:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 15:08 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:49 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:06 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:00 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:26 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:21 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:14 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:57 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:25 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:42 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:53 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:02 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-26 12:14 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:07 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:17 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:55 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 18:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:58 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 08:34 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:05 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:37 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:25 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:17 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:29 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:39 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:16 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:40 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:54 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:22 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:30 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:36 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:52 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:59 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:50 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:11 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:15 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:21 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:53 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:59 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:13 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:33 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:31 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:09 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:43 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:13 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:44 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 08:16 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:41 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:23 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:34 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 18:14 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:02 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 09:58 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 13:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:29 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 14:07 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 17:42 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:10 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:51 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:40 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:46 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:32 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:22 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:36 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:52 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:06 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 11:56 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:06 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:26 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:00 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:40 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:23 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 18:42 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 19:50 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:06 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 20:38 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:00 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 23:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:31 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 11:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:32 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:58 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 18:28 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:29 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:45 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:51 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 10:36 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 05:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 09:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:00 -0700
DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:57 -0500
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:31 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:37 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:16 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 18:59 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-23 21:04 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:16 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:28 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:08 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:17 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:26 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:55 -0500
Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111jbgo$3qdf6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141945 |
On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote: >> On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks any >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a >>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that PTS claims that unproven propositions are >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to completely >>>>>>>>>>>>> overthrow standard truth- theoretic semantics). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>>>>>>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>>>>>>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>>>>>>>>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>>>>>>>>> questions presented. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >>>>>>>>>> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >>>>>>>>>> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >>>>>>>>>> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >>>>>>>>>> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >>>>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >>>>>>>>>> than 100-fold more valuable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not that they never admit defeat. >>>>>>>> It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the >>>>>>> relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different >>>>>>> presentations of the same already known facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> It will have the exhaustively complete list of >>>>>> every atomic fact of general knowledge of the >>>>>> actual world. >>>>> >>>>> That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general >>>>> knowledge >>>>> in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts. >>>> >>>> It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly. >>>> We start with all of the textbooks. >>> >>> That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend >>> to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones, >>> mainly some now obsolete technology. >> >> It would not be too much reading for LLMs. >> It could start with all of the latest textbooks >> for all of the fields. Some of these latest >> textbooks may be hundreds of years old for >> fields that have become obsolete. > > Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting > atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the > inference system. > (a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part, yet not too hard. (b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison. (c) Encoding facts, CycL -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111l5so$atqa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141951 |
On 25/06/2026 16:47, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently and in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that PTS claims that unproven propositions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overthrow standard truth- theoretic semantics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>>>>>>>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>>>>>>>>>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>>>>>>>>>> questions presented. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >>>>>>>>>>> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >>>>>>>>>>> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >>>>>>>>>>> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >>>>>>>>>>> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >>>>>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >>>>>>>>>>> than 100-fold more valuable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not that they never admit defeat. >>>>>>>>> It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the >>>>>>>> relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different >>>>>>>> presentations of the same already known facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It will have the exhaustively complete list of >>>>>>> every atomic fact of general knowledge of the >>>>>>> actual world. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general >>>>>> knowledge >>>>>> in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts. >>>>> >>>>> It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly. >>>>> We start with all of the textbooks. >>>> >>>> That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend >>>> to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones, >>>> mainly some now obsolete technology. >>> >>> It would not be too much reading for LLMs. >>> It could start with all of the latest textbooks >>> for all of the fields. Some of these latest >>> textbooks may be hundreds of years old for >>> fields that have become obsolete. >> >> Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting >> atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the >> inference system. >> > (a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part, > yet not too hard. > > (b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison. > > (c) Encoding facts, CycL The encoding must be normalized as much as possible in order to reduce repetition to a string comparison. That is not a trivial problem if one wants a total or nearly total prevention of repetition. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 08:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111lt8t$hp1v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141965 |
On 6/26/2026 1:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 25/06/2026 16:47, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently and in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article. What I am quite certain of, however, is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS actually says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as he's made a variety of fairly absurd claims regarding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it (for example, that PTS claims that unproven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to completely overthrow standard truth- theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and >>>>>>>>>>>>> other questions presented. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >>>>>>>>>>>> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >>>>>>>>>>>> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >>>>>>>>>>>> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >>>>>>>>>>>> than 100-fold more valuable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not that they never admit defeat. >>>>>>>>>> It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the >>>>>>>>> relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different >>>>>>>>> presentations of the same already known facts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It will have the exhaustively complete list of >>>>>>>> every atomic fact of general knowledge of the >>>>>>>> actual world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general >>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>> in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly. >>>>>> We start with all of the textbooks. >>>>> >>>>> That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend >>>>> to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones, >>>>> mainly some now obsolete technology. >>>> >>>> It would not be too much reading for LLMs. >>>> It could start with all of the latest textbooks >>>> for all of the fields. Some of these latest >>>> textbooks may be hundreds of years old for >>>> fields that have become obsolete. >>> >>> Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting >>> atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the >>> inference system. >>> >> (a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part, >> yet not too hard. >> >> (b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison. >> >> (c) Encoding facts, CycL > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL I still have the original user's manuals as PDFs and hard copies. > The encoding must be normalized as much as possible in order to reduce > repetition to a string comparison. That is not a trivial problem if one > wants a total or nearly total prevention of repetition. > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:19 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111nthq$13irc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141973 |
On 26/06/2026 16:02, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2026 1:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 25/06/2026 16:47, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with inferential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical and extra- logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently and in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yours. I basically only know what is presented in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stanford Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out is not exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article. What I am quite certain of, however, is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS actually says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as he's made a variety of fairly absurd claims regarding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it (for example, that PTS claims that unproven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to completely overthrow standard truth- theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other questions presented. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >>>>>>>>>>>>> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >>>>>>>>>>>>> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >>>>>>>>>>>>> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >>>>>>>>>>>>> than 100-fold more valuable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not that they never admit defeat. >>>>>>>>>>> It is that that have a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>>>>> reasoning >>>>>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the >>>>>>>>>> relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different >>>>>>>>>> presentations of the same already known facts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It will have the exhaustively complete list of >>>>>>>>> every atomic fact of general knowledge of the >>>>>>>>> actual world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general >>>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>>> in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more >>>>>>>> facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly. >>>>>>> We start with all of the textbooks. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend >>>>>> to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones, >>>>>> mainly some now obsolete technology. >>>>> >>>>> It would not be too much reading for LLMs. >>>>> It could start with all of the latest textbooks >>>>> for all of the fields. Some of these latest >>>>> textbooks may be hundreds of years old for >>>>> fields that have become obsolete. >>>> >>>> Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting >>>> atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the >>>> inference system. >>>> >>> (a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part, >>> yet not too hard. >>> >>> (b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison. >>> >>> (c) Encoding facts, CycL > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL > I still have the original user's manuals > as PDFs and hard copies. Do they say anything about normalization? >> The encoding must be normalized as much as possible in order to reduce >> repetition to a string comparison. That is not a trivial problem if one >> wants a total or nearly total prevention of repetition. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111oqih$1kcet$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #142017 |
On 6/27/2026 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 26/06/2026 16:02, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 1:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 25/06/2026 16:47, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything at all, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with inferential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical and extra- logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently and in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yours. I basically only know what is presented in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stanford Encyclopedia article (which you correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out is not exactly aimed at beginners) and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia article. What I am quite certain of, however, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually says as he's made a variety of fairly absurd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims regarding it (for example, that PTS claims that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unproven propositions are 'meaningless' or that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal of PTS is to completely overthrow standard truth- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other questions presented. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >>>>>>>>>>>>>> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than 100-fold more valuable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit >>>>>>>>>>>>> defeat? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that they never admit defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>> It is that that have a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the >>>>>>>>>>> relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different >>>>>>>>>>> presentations of the same already known facts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It will have the exhaustively complete list of >>>>>>>>>> every atomic fact of general knowledge of the >>>>>>>>>> actual world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general >>>>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>>>> in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more >>>>>>>>> facts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly. >>>>>>>> We start with all of the textbooks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend >>>>>>> to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones, >>>>>>> mainly some now obsolete technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would not be too much reading for LLMs. >>>>>> It could start with all of the latest textbooks >>>>>> for all of the fields. Some of these latest >>>>>> textbooks may be hundreds of years old for >>>>>> fields that have become obsolete. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting >>>>> atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the >>>>> inference system. >>>>> >>>> (a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part, >>>> yet not too hard. >>>> >>>> (b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison. >>>> >>>> (c) Encoding facts, CycL >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL >> I still have the original user's manuals >> as PDFs and hard copies. > > Do they say anything about normalization? > I haven't read them. Canonical form is required Prawitz's validity semantics. >>> The encoding must be normalized as much as possible in order to reduce >>> repetition to a string comparison. That is not a trivial problem if one >>> wants a total or nearly total prevention of repetition. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 21:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4u6dnd2HnYxdJKX3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #141839 |
On 06/21/2026 05:32 PM, phoenix wrote: > olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>> olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>>> central role >>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>>>> defined >>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>> extra- logical >>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>>> What it >>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe André >>>>>> could >>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than anybody >>>>>> else here. >>>>> >>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia >>>>> article (which you correctly point out is not exactly aimed at >>>>> beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What I am quite certain of, >>>>> however, is that Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS >>>>> actually says as he's made a variety of fairly absurd claims >>>>> regarding it (for example, that PTS claims that unproven >>>>> propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to >>>>> completely overthrow standard truth-theoretic semantics). >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>> theoretic semantics? >>>> >>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>> questions presented. >>> >> >> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >> >> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >> sentence. >> >> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >> than 100-fold more valuable. >> > What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? That is, > they will never accept that they are wrong even when it's right up there > in clearly visible un-mathematics for us to see? That is, they tend to > have a weakness in 3D geometry I have discovered (I guess the computer > scientists are going to fill in their eyes last). But far be it from > them to admit it. They will conjure answer after answer to try to back > up their position. Maybe I should go back and watch that human-AI debate > that went viral. Spoiler - the humans won. It might be interesting to > see now what exactly the AI lost. Perhaps it was stating mistruths like > it still does. Wouldn't this be spectacular television today to have > that debate? It's somewhere on Youtube. I'll probably give a holler when > I find it. You may find it fairly interesting too, as you seem to also > have some experience with the LLM AIs. > > By the way, I don't have a PhD in everything, but it does cover > electrical engineering -- a field heavy in mathematics. I admit we > didn't study Gödel, Escher or Bach, but I managed to get through Real > Analysis with minor difficulty. It was largely the mathematics of proof. > It's a more difficult field than it may sound. I found you've really got > to make the interlocking pieces overlap such that there is a story told > that is without holes in it. > > I toughed it out in Real Analysis. It was easier than Solid State > Physics which appeared as if magic to me. Teleporting electrons and > other quantum features. That was one of the big sticks on my back that > made me step back and re-think my double major and set computer science > as merely a minor to handle all the tribulations. > If you like solid-state physics then you might consider that the wave model and Lienard-Wiechert after Fermi holes are _abstractions_ and furthermore _reductions_, that it's _reductionism_ that arrives that the theory's "good to the first or second order" or provides "on the order of" accounts of proportionality, that in the real world, vary like spiral-waves and wave-spirals, and Faraday rotation and the real behavior of "Fermi holes" that Lienard-Wiechert then is to give an account as for Coulomb and Ampere the behavior of electron-holes with regards to test-particles in the analysis of the continuum mechanics (that's an infinitesimal analysis), then for example making that line up with Maxwell's either E x B or D x H, usually just the one there and ignoring that as Maxwell put it that either would do to define the other, then usual "paradoxes" of quantum mechanics are actually problems of the particle-conceit since there are fields and for example after the particle/wave duality the wave/resonance dichotomy, then besides that the tachyonic and bradyonic would get involved in accounts of "real wave collapse", which though anything that provides the "Schroedingerians" for quantum mechanics, much like the "Lorentzians" for general relativity, suffices to make a theory that all the experiments in "canonical quantum mechanics" and "confirmed general relativity" can ever be said to have said. So, anti-reductionism is filling in further accounts of QM and GR, like continuous quanta instead of Born's infinite self-energy and slanted commutators or Feynman's de-normalized re-normalized theories with virtual photons which aren't, or "doubly-objective" relativity theory, there's room in the theory and room in the data to make quantum mechanics continuous again and general relativity Euclidean again. Most people might think the "crises in physics" need to get resolved by adding hypothetical things, yet really the idea is to fit what goes in where there's already "room" in the theory and data, since the "reductionism" that left that "room" to paint itself into a corner, has "revisiting the reductionism", or like I used to say, "revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs", with that they've been made end-results that are dead-end-results.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 00:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oN-cnXW5np8gf6X3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #141850 |
On 06/21/2026 09:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/21/2026 05:32 PM, phoenix wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >>>> olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and >>>>>>>>> Outlook" >>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>>>> central role >>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>>>>> defined >>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>>> extra- logical >>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>>>> What it >>>>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe André >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than anybody >>>>>>> else here. >>>>>> >>>>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia >>>>>> article (which you correctly point out is not exactly aimed at >>>>>> beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What I am quite certain of, >>>>>> however, is that Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS >>>>>> actually says as he's made a variety of fairly absurd claims >>>>>> regarding it (for example, that PTS claims that unproven >>>>>> propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to >>>>>> completely overthrow standard truth-theoretic semantics). >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> In other words it answers the question: >>>>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>>>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>> theoretic semantics? >>>>> >>>> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>> questions presented. >>>> >>> >>> This is the key element to creating the algorithm >>> that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>> >>> We can make these lies look foolish at every language >>> level from below average kindergarten to profoundly >>> brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we >>> can do this before the liar finishes saying their >>> sentence. >>> >>> It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more >>> than 100-fold more valuable. >>> >> What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? That is, >> they will never accept that they are wrong even when it's right up there >> in clearly visible un-mathematics for us to see? That is, they tend to >> have a weakness in 3D geometry I have discovered (I guess the computer >> scientists are going to fill in their eyes last). But far be it from >> them to admit it. They will conjure answer after answer to try to back >> up their position. Maybe I should go back and watch that human-AI debate >> that went viral. Spoiler - the humans won. It might be interesting to >> see now what exactly the AI lost. Perhaps it was stating mistruths like >> it still does. Wouldn't this be spectacular television today to have >> that debate? It's somewhere on Youtube. I'll probably give a holler when >> I find it. You may find it fairly interesting too, as you seem to also >> have some experience with the LLM AIs. >> >> By the way, I don't have a PhD in everything, but it does cover >> electrical engineering -- a field heavy in mathematics. I admit we >> didn't study Gödel, Escher or Bach, but I managed to get through Real >> Analysis with minor difficulty. It was largely the mathematics of proof. >> It's a more difficult field than it may sound. I found you've really got >> to make the interlocking pieces overlap such that there is a story told >> that is without holes in it. >> >> I toughed it out in Real Analysis. It was easier than Solid State >> Physics which appeared as if magic to me. Teleporting electrons and >> other quantum features. That was one of the big sticks on my back that >> made me step back and re-think my double major and set computer science >> as merely a minor to handle all the tribulations. >> > > If you like solid-state physics then you might consider that the wave > model and Lienard-Wiechert after Fermi holes are _abstractions_ and > furthermore _reductions_, that it's _reductionism_ that arrives that > the theory's "good to the first or second order" or provides "on the > order of" accounts of proportionality, that in the real world, vary > like spiral-waves and wave-spirals, and Faraday rotation and the real > behavior of "Fermi holes" that Lienard-Wiechert then is to give an > account as for Coulomb and Ampere the behavior of electron-holes with > regards to test-particles in the analysis of the continuum mechanics > (that's an infinitesimal analysis), then for example making that line > up with Maxwell's either E x B or D x H, usually just the one there > and ignoring that as Maxwell put it that either would do to define the > other, then usual "paradoxes" of quantum mechanics are actually problems > of the particle-conceit since there are fields and for example after the > particle/wave duality the wave/resonance dichotomy, then besides that > the tachyonic and bradyonic would get involved in accounts > of "real wave collapse", which though anything that provides the > "Schroedingerians" for quantum mechanics, much like the "Lorentzians" > for general relativity, suffices to make a theory that all the > experiments in "canonical quantum mechanics" and "confirmed general > relativity" can ever be said to have said. > > > So, anti-reductionism is filling in further accounts of QM and GR, > like continuous quanta instead of Born's infinite self-energy and > slanted commutators or Feynman's de-normalized re-normalized theories > with virtual photons which aren't, or "doubly-objective" relativity > theory, there's room in the theory and room in the data to make > quantum mechanics continuous again and general relativity Euclidean again. > > Most people might think the "crises in physics" need to get resolved > by adding hypothetical things, yet really the idea is to fit what > goes in where there's already "room" in the theory and data, since > the "reductionism" that left that "room" to paint itself into a corner, > has "revisiting the reductionism", or like I used to say, "revisit > Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs", with that they've been made end-results > that are dead-end-results. > > > > Not to mention "dead Internet theory" and little crowds of "troll-bots and anti-troll-bots", or, "Burse's bizarro troll-bots".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Rq6cneDXfqyMKqX3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #141823 |
On 06/21/2026 04:15 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>> >>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>> central role >>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>>>> logical >>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>> >>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>> >>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>> What it >>>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe André >>>>> could >>>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than anybody else >>>>> here. >>>> >>>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia >>>> article (which you correctly point out is not exactly aimed at >>>> beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What I am quite certain of, >>>> however, is that Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS actually >>>> says as he's made a variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it >>>> (for example, that PTS claims that unproven propositions are >>>> 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to completely overthrow >>>> standard truth-theoretic semantics). >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>> is semantics in terms of proof. >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>> In other words it answers the question: >>> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >>> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>> theoretic semantics? >>> >> Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other questions >> presented. >> > > This is the key element to creating the algorithm > that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. > > We can make these lies look foolish at every language > level from below average kindergarten to profoundly > brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we > can do this before the liar finishes saying their > sentence. > > It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more > than 100-fold more valuable. > It's really quite an old-fashioned idea to think that some "System of the World" is the end-all be-all of accounts of reasoning. One might look to Frege, Frege had a great account of the "completeness" of arithmetic, i.e., decades before Goedel came up with completeness theorems for arithmetic before he came up with incompleteness theorems for arithmetic, which as one might aver is a contradiction, Frege had a great account of completeness of arithmetic, then Russell plied the Russell's paradox and pushed Frege aside, then Russell made Russell's retro-thesis that an inductive set wasn't containing itself thus paradoxical as a sort of false-axiom, then later Goedel made an arithmetization of the theory of arithmetic then later simply applied the anti-diagonal argument to that and resulted Goedel's incompleteness for missing Goedel-numbers (of theorems). It's very old-fashioned though, the idea of the comfort of the certitude of a complete theory, like the Pythagoreans, for whom every number was rational. Then these days the Pythagoreans and the Cantorians basically de-test each other in the sense of proving each other wrong, which is too bad since then they're both wrong. About Goedel's incompleteness, one thing to note about it is that it doesn't apply to a system with universal axioms nor to a system with no axioms, basically after anti-diagonalizing the axiom-system and arriving at Cantor's paradox or Cantor's paradise, then it's a usual sort of statement about theories that keep them incomplete so that the infinite may still be super-standard and extra-ordinary, that a more _replete_ theory gets involved with making the Pythagoreans and Cantorians not inconsistent with each other, since plainly they can't agree, since "false-axioms" get excluded. Theories that are any good at all are equi-interpretable, besides the usual account of inter-subjectivity, has that since the universe of mathematical objects already exists as "Hilbert's Infinite, Living, Working Museum of Mathematics", or the mathematically Platonistic universe, then model-theory and proof-theory are equi-interpretable also, as a matter of structure. "Monotonicity" and "entailment" are the two great features of adding together facts and resulting conclusions, about those facts, "quasi-modal logic" with "quasi-monotonicity" and "quasi-entailment" is basically only for closed, finite lists of facts, _that are already consistent_, since garbage-in garbage-out, crazy-in crazy-out. In my video essays "Logos 2000: rulial foundations" it's explained why well-ordering and well-foundedness and well-dispersion don't kill the theory in their contradictions, then that "Logos 2000: Foundations briefly" is nice, and that "Logos 2000: paradox-free reason" is accessible dialog about having a theory that's true about truth and infinity and continuity. Accounts of the ordinary and completeness, like Russell's, are considered closed and small and examples, not "fundamental".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1119u8f$15blb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141818 |
On 2026-06-21 15:39, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>> >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>> bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: >>> >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >>>>> role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, >>>>> and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>> defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>> logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>> >>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>> >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>> >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>> What it >>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe André could >>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than anybody else >>> here. >> >> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I basically >> only know what is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia article >> (which you correctly point out is not exactly aimed at beginners) and >> the Wikipedia article. What I am quite certain of, however, is that >> Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made >> a variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, that PTS >> claims that unproven propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal >> of PTS is to completely overthrow standard truth-theoretic semantics). >> >> André >> > > Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to > truth-condition semantics. It is based on the > fundamental assumption that the central notion > in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain > expressions of our language, in particular to > logical constants, is that of proof rather than > truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics > is semantics in terms of proof. > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > > In other words it answers the question: > What happens when truth conditional semantics is > utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof > theoretic semantics? No where does it talk about 'utterly abandoning' truth conditional semantics. You really need to learn to read for comprehension. They're offering an alternative intended to exist *alongside* truth conditional semantics which they feel is more appropriate for investigating certain classes of questions. Truth conditional semantics is more appropriate for other classes of questions. There are lots of different logics out there. The idea that they are all competing to be the one true logic is simply a fantasy of yours. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 19:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119uov$15k81$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141832 |
On 6/21/2026 7:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-06-21 15:39, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>> >>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>> bothered >>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>> section at the end: >>>> >>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>> central role >>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>> defined >>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>>> logical >>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>> >>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>> >>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>> >>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>> What it >>>> ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe André could >>>> elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than anybody else >>>> here. >>> >>> I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I basically >>> only know what is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia article >>> (which you correctly point out is not exactly aimed at beginners) and >>> the Wikipedia article. What I am quite certain of, however, is that >>> Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made >>> a variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, that PTS >>> claims that unproven propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal >>> of PTS is to completely overthrow standard truth-theoretic semantics). >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >> fundamental assumption that the central notion >> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >> expressions of our language, in particular to >> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >> is semantics in terms of proof. >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >> In other words it answers the question: >> What happens when truth conditional semantics is >> utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >> theoretic semantics? > > No where does it talk about 'utterly abandoning' Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics. Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics. Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics. Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics. Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11169dq$547p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141720 |
On 6/20/2026 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>> Making sure to leave out >> >>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >> >>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >> even understand proof by contradiction. >> >> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >> section at the end: >> >> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >> role >> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, >> and >> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >> defined >> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >> logical >> | inferential definitions alike. >> >> Does this have any meaning? > > Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the > near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and > effort if it is possible at all. > Proof Theoretic Semantics is the basis that makes: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. A sememe is the smallest indivisible unit of meaning in linguistics. PTS forms a tree of knowledge such that every sememe is connected to all of its semantic meaning entirely via connections to other sememes. I have previously referred to this as a semantic tautology. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 14:04 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118gf4$oa7t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141731 |
On 20/06/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>> >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>> >>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>> section at the end: >>> >>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>> central role >>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>> exclusive, and >>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>> defined >>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>> logical >>> | inferential definitions alike. >>> >>> Does this have any meaning? >> >> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >> effort if it is possible at all. > > Proof Theoretic Semantics is the basis that makes: > "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. Can you prove that that really is computable? Anyway, that something is called "computable" does not tell how to compute it. > A sememe is the smallest indivisible unit of meaning > in linguistics. > > PTS forms a tree of knowledge such that every sememe > is connected to all of its semantic meaning entirely > via connections to other sememes. Is that structure really a tree? Is that structure any different from the structure formed by inferences and theorems? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1115gnj$3sh2v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141699 |
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: > On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >> alternative views out-of-hand without review > > Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) > incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to > look into proof theoretic semantics. At different times you have expressed different opinions, which sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present ones. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11168qn$4umb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141719 |
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >> >> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >> look into proof theoretic semantics. > > At different times you have expressed different opinions, which > sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly > retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present > ones. > All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118do2$nf7k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141730 |
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >>> >>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >> >> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >> ones. > > All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things > are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. > These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence > has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable (or nearly publishable) article about them. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119tr1$15c1h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141796 |
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >>>> >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>> >>> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>> ones. >> >> All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. >> These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence >> has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. > > That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable > (or nearly publishable) article about them. > I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single human being on the face of the Earth could understand me I could not publish. Now that I am acquiring the lingua franca of PTS I will finally be able to publish. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:41 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111ale5$1arkp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141828 |
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >>>>> >>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>> >>>> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>> ones. >>> >>> All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. >>> These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence >>> has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. >> >> That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable >> (or nearly publishable) article about them. > > I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being on the face of the Earth could understand > me I could not publish. As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but aren't. > Now that I am acquiring the lingua franca of PTS I > will finally be able to publish. If all you can publish is in the topic area of PtS then they may count as uninteresting to those whose primary problems are not in that topic area. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 07:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111b8lg$1ghve$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141854 |
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >>>>>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>> >>>>> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>> ones. >>>> >>>> All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >>>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. >>>> These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence >>>> has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. >>> >>> That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable >>> (or nearly publishable) article about them. >> >> I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being on >> the face of the Earth could understand >> me I could not publish. > > As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles > that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but > aren't. > They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics >> Now that I am acquiring the lingua franca of PTS I >> will finally be able to publish. > > If all you can publish is in the topic area of PtS then they may > count as uninteresting to those whose primary problems are not in > that topic area. > My extensions to PTS eliminate the LLM reliability issues. This makes the Trillion dollar industry at least 100-fold more valuable. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 08:55 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111d74l$21rb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141863 |
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> >>>>>> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>> ones. >>>>> >>>>> All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >>>>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. >>>>> These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence >>>>> has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. >>>> >>>> That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable >>>> (or nearly publishable) article about them. >>> >>> I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being on >>> the face of the Earth could understand >>> me I could not publish. >> >> As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles >> that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but >> aren't. > > They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or has a pointer to an olready published proof. >>> Now that I am acquiring the lingua franca of PTS I >>> will finally be able to publish. >> If all you can publish is in the topic area of PtS then they may >> count as uninteresting to those whose primary problems are not in >> that topic area. > > My extensions to PTS eliminate the LLM reliability issues. Does not help as long as those extensions are not published so that your articles can point to them. > This makes the Trillion dollar industry at least 100-fold > more valuable. Value of some industry in January 2049 is a proor predictor of the vale of the same industry in December 2049. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111e6a2$2b34r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141902 |
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>>> ones. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >>>>>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category. >>>>>> These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence >>>>>> has remained utterly unchanged since 1997. >>>>> >>>>> That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable >>>>> (or nearly publishable) article about them. >>>> >>>> I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being >>>> on the face of the Earth could understand >>>> me I could not publish. >>> >>> As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles >>> that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but >>> aren't. >> >> They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics > > An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or > has a pointer to an olready published proof. > Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the most respected authors in the field. My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1% of your concentration understanding me and the other 99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless rebuttal. "Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ Not one person has even understood that one sentence yet. >>>> Now that I am acquiring the lingua franca of PTS I >>>> will finally be able to publish. > >>> If all you can publish is in the topic area of PtS then they may >>> count as uninteresting to those whose primary problems are not in >>> that topic area. >> >> My extensions to PTS eliminate the LLM reliability issues. > > Does not help as long as those extensions are not published so that > your articles can point to them. > >> This makes the Trillion dollar industry at least 100-fold >> more valuable. > > Value of some industry in January 2049 is a proor predictor of the > vale of the same industry in December 2049. > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott 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. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web