Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #346714 > 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 362 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
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 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 15:57 -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 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 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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 00:18 -0700
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 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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 00:19 -0700
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) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:38 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
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 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 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: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-04 15:11 +0100
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> - 2026-07-03 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> - 2026-06-28 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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:31 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:49 +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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 06:23 -0700
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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:19 -0700
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 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111ltf4$hurp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347014 |
On 6/26/2026 1:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 25/06/2026 16:58, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2026 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more >>>>> important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one >>>>> mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is >>>>> wrong one may achieve a disaseter. >>>> >>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition >>>> semantics. >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative >>>> to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed >>>> to same that no alternative can possibly exist. >>> >>> You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative semantics. >> >> With dangerous lies that can destroy Democracy >> and kill the planet with climate change having >> an ultimate arbiter of truth would be useful. > > Those who are able and willing to destroy democracy are able to provice > an ultimate arbiter of truth and usually do so. But they don't need any > proof theoretic semantics. > An ultimate arbiter of truth blows their whole game away. One-two punch Destroys Liars #WhatIsTheEvidence #ThatIsNotEvidence Around and around until Defeated Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that he has no evidence https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508 2026-06-07 -- 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 10:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111nu11$13nu4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347023 |
On 26/06/2026 16:05, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2026 1:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 25/06/2026 16:58, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2026 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more >>>>>> important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one >>>>>> mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is >>>>>> wrong one may achieve a disaseter. >>>>> >>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition >>>>> semantics. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative >>>>> to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed >>>>> to same that no alternative can possibly exist. >>>> >>>> You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative >>>> semantics. >>> >>> With dangerous lies that can destroy Democracy >>> and kill the planet with climate change having >>> an ultimate arbiter of truth would be useful. >> >> Those who are able and willing to destroy democracy are able to provice >> an ultimate arbiter of truth and usually do so. But they don't need any >> proof theoretic semantics. > > An ultimate arbiter of truth blows their whole game away. THe point of the ultimate arbiter of truth is that the errors in the determinations of any alternative arbiter can be detected and similar errors in future can be avoided with suitable admistrative or other actions if regarded necessary. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111oqmp$1kcet$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #347068 |
On 6/27/2026 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 26/06/2026 16:05, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2026 1:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 25/06/2026 16:58, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2026 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more >>>>>>> important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one >>>>>>> mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is >>>>>>> wrong one may achieve a disaseter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition >>>>>> semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative >>>>>> to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed >>>>>> to same that no alternative can possibly exist. >>>>> >>>>> You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative >>>>> semantics. >>>> >>>> With dangerous lies that can destroy Democracy >>>> and kill the planet with climate change having >>>> an ultimate arbiter of truth would be useful. >>> >>> Those who are able and willing to destroy democracy are able to provice >>> an ultimate arbiter of truth and usually do so. But they don't need any >>> proof theoretic semantics. >> >> An ultimate arbiter of truth blows their whole game away. > > THe point of the ultimate arbiter of truth is that the errors in the > determinations of any alternative arbiter can be detected and similar > errors in future can be avoided with suitable admistrative or other > actions if regarded necessary. > When all of the relevant facts are known then counter-factual lies are easy to detect. -- 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 | 2026-06-28 11:04 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111qkj7$3ft95$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347082 |
On 27/06/2026 18:36, polcott wrote: > On 6/27/2026 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 26/06/2026 16:05, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2026 1:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 25/06/2026 16:58, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2026 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more >>>>>>>> important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one >>>>>>>> mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is >>>>>>>> wrong one may achieve a disaseter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition >>>>>>> semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative >>>>>>> to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed >>>>>>> to same that no alternative can possibly exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative >>>>>> semantics. >>>>> >>>>> With dangerous lies that can destroy Democracy >>>>> and kill the planet with climate change having >>>>> an ultimate arbiter of truth would be useful. >>>> >>>> Those who are able and willing to destroy democracy are able to provice >>>> an ultimate arbiter of truth and usually do so. But they don't need any >>>> proof theoretic semantics. >>> >>> An ultimate arbiter of truth blows their whole game away. >> >> THe point of the ultimate arbiter of truth is that the errors in the >> determinations of any alternative arbiter can be detected and similar >> errors in future can be avoided with suitable admistrative or other >> actions if regarded necessary. >> > > When all of the relevant facts are known then > counter-factual lies are easy to detect. Simple lies probably are. Nothing is easy about sufficiently complex lies. And facts about sets and numbers and finite strings and other topics must be sufficently restricted to prevent uncomputability of decidability. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 22:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6Z6dnQvJd8T6uav3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #346729 |
On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, 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. > This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize > by rote mindset. > Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach, and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual. a principle of inverse supplants, subsumes, and includes a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle a principle of thorough reason supplants, subsumes, and includes a principle of sufficient reason a principle of implosion obviates and makes an example of a principle of explosion The about "the theory" here is one called "The A-Theory" then it's written as "theatheory" as an account of axiomless theory that then makes for axiomless geometry and axiomless arithmetic after a usual account since Hegel of the concepts Being and Nothing after the Universal and Void for Leibnitz' "fundamental question of metaphysics", providing the Euclidean geometry and Archimedean arithmetic. Then accounts of modern mathematics get involved theories-of-one-relation and there are at least three models of continuous domains, at least three models of Cantor space, at least three models of integers, at least three laws of large numbers, at least three probabilistic limit theorems, and otherwise for accounts of continuity and infinity for a "Great Atlas of Mathematical Independence". For accounts of language, is involved the Metonymy and Metaphor, or "Comenius" and "Coleridge" language, about an objective account of all the truth and an inter-subjective account of natural language. Then physics is also included in "Foundations", in this sort of paleo-classical post-modern super-theory and natural science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11167ff$4i7e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346752 |
On 6/20/2026 12:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, 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. >> This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize >> by rote mindset. >> > > > Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach, > and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual. > > a principle of inverse > supplants, subsumes, and includes > a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle > Modern Logic has always simply ignored that an expression may be semantically incoherent because logic has always ignored semantics and focused on syntax. > a principle of thorough reason > supplants, subsumes, and includes > a principle of sufficient reason > With logical induction reasoning can never be airtight because inductive reasoning has the problem of induction. > a principle of implosion > obviates and makes an example of > a principle of explosion > Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. This by itself prevent POE from being derived. (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11168gv$3mga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346761 |
On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: > > Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: > Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. > > Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q > is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. > This by itself prevent POE from being derived. > > (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes > > Is the following statement true? -------------------------------------- Earth is the third planet from the sun. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11169ih$547p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346765 |
On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >> >> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >> >> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >> >> > > Is the following statement true? > > -------------------------------------- > Earth is the third planet from the sun. > -------------------------------------- > Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. True(L, X) ≡ ∃Γ ⊆ BaseFacts(L) (Γ ⊢ X) // copyright PL Olcott 2018 -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11169oa$3mga$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346769 |
On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>> >>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>> >>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>> >>> >> >> Is the following statement true? >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. Good. Let's take that as a given. Is the following statement true? -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - The moon is made of green cheese. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116b75$5kis$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346770 |
On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>> >>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>> >>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Is the following statement true? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. > > Good. Let's take that as a given. > > Is the following statement true? > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - The moon is made of green cheese. > -------------------------------------- > It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is already encoded. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1116b95$3mga$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346771 |
On 6/20/2026 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>>> >>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>>> >>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is the following statement true? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. >> >> Good. Let's take that as a given. >> >> Is the following statement true? >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - The moon is made of green cheese. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts > are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is > already encoded. That's not what I asked. I asked if the following statement is true: -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - The moon is made of green cheese. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116cg8$61cv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346772 |
On 6/20/2026 10:23 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>>>> >>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is the following statement true? >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. >>> >>> Good. Let's take that as a given. >>> >>> Is the following statement true? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts >> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is >> already encoded. > > That's not what I asked. I asked if the following statement is true: > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - The moon is made of green cheese. > -------------------------------------- > So you are not smart enough to understand that when the actual composition of the Moon is specified and that this composition is not green cheese that the system would report false? I will not play head sames with you on this. Instead of head games your replies will be ignored. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1116cnr$3mga$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346774 |
On 6/20/2026 11:44 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 10:23 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the following statement true? >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. >>>> >>>> Good. Let's take that as a given. >>>> >>>> Is the following statement true? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts >>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is >>> already encoded. >> >> That's not what I asked. I asked if the following statement is true: >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - The moon is made of green cheese. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > So you are not smart enough to understand that > when the actual composition of the Moon is specified > and that this composition is not green cheese that > the system would report false? So you're saying the moon is not made of green cheese? So based on that, is the following statement true? -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - The moon is made of green cheese. -------------------------------------- > > I will not play head sames with you on this. Instead > of head games your replies will be ignored. I am not playing head games. I am merely employing Socratic questioning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <duudnS_wx9s2Xqv3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #346776 |
On 06/20/2026 08:48 AM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 11:44 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 10:23 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the following statement true? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. >>>>> >>>>> Good. Let's take that as a given. >>>>> >>>>> Is the following statement true? >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts >>>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is >>>> already encoded. >>> >>> That's not what I asked. I asked if the following statement is true: >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> So you are not smart enough to understand that >> when the actual composition of the Moon is specified >> and that this composition is not green cheese that >> the system would report false? > > So you're saying the moon is not made of green cheese? So based on > that, is the following statement true? > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - The moon is made of green cheese. > -------------------------------------- > > >> >> I will not play head sames with you on this. Instead >> of head games your replies will be ignored. > > I am not playing head games. I am merely employing Socratic questioning. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning If you intend to setup "material implication" you can stop right there. Here we have quite an account of De Morgan's _laws_ of logic and direct implication quite suffices, and furthermore "material implication" and the "quasi-modal" is quite excluded from "classical logic". The "classical logic" has since Anaximander and Chrysippus the "modal, temporal, relevance logic". The Socrates was not much of a technical philosopher, not so much "what is it?" as "what's in it for me?", the sophist of the philo-sophy that's not the casuist of the philo-casuy or philo-casuistry. So, the "Platonist" and the "Epicurean" are two quite thoroughly different accounts of the world, so you better mind your p's and q's, and anybody can make a simple example showing that "material implication" is a "quasi-modal setting for fallacy". Any given day: Russell's an inconstant, hypocritical flake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 16:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1116slg$9b6g$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346774 |
On 6/20/2026 11:44 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 10:23 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 11:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this: >>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q >>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted. >>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the following statement true? >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts. >>>> >>>> Good. Let's take that as a given. >>>> >>>> Is the following statement true? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts >>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is >>> already encoded. >> >> That's not what I asked. I asked if the following statement is true: >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - The moon is made of green cheese. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > So you are not smart enough to understand that > when the actual composition of the Moon is specified > and that this composition is not green cheese that > the system would report false? I am employing Socratic questioning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning I want to know if YOU believe the following statement is true or false: -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - The moon is made of green cheese. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <yJGdnSDaDc6GXav3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #346771 |
On 06/20/2026 08:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this:
>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q
>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted.
>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived.
>>>>>
>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts.
>>
>> Good. Let's take that as a given.
>>
>> Is the following statement true?
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>> - The moon is made of green cheese.
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>
> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts
> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is
> already encoded.
>
Hm. Here the idea is that there are no more "meta-theories",
of what's a "super-theory", that's a "mono-heno-theory",
among various accounts of "heno-theories", any sort "theory".
So, giving the "fundamental question of metaphysics" ("why is
there something rather than nothing?"), and, what it is, starts
with an idea of a universe of Truth, all the logical truisms
and the grounds for a logical universe, then that the "paradox"
of quantification gives an example "Confessing Liar", that
is itself, a template and example of what would be un-true,
yet only as found and discovered among all the truth. This
invokes ideas like "univocity", about there being a "Comenius language"
of all the truths, then the haeccity and quiddity, or "thing-nesses",
these are archaic terms yet common since about at least 800 years.
So, the Bible and the Vedas have examples, for example starting
with "in the beginning ..." about a space of geometry and the
contents of the Space-Time, and "in the beginning..." about the word
and the light of the word, and the Atman and Brahman as giving accounts
of inter-subjective objectivity, then with Zeno's arguments after
Heraclitus for dual monism and Parmenides for a wider, fuller dialectic,
the pre-Socratics or Eleatics, making the paleo-classical account, of
the most common references, for discourse and reason,
about the objects of mathematics and physics, and language and
knowledge. Then, since the Aristotlean, and with the wider and fuller
dialetic of the full Aristotlean and Aristotlean realism, and then
since the Scholastics and the renewed Aristotlean, DesCartes and the
enlightened rationality, Leibnitz and the universals, then Kant and
Hegel bring Being and Nothing, and the sublime and ding-an-sich and the
fuller dialectic, these are elements of the canon and the dogma and
the doctrine.
A "heno-theory", then, a "one-theory", basically has logical elements
in the theory and gets connected via language to non-logical or
properly-logical objects, any account of abstraction or description
basically has that a "heno-theory" is a realist structuralist's model
of a theory, that models other theories. Then the idea of a
mono-heno-theory is again that it's a one theory with all the truth,
where truth
is the quantity and truth is conserved, and the universe is full of it,
then that any other exercise in theory is an exercise in it.
Void and Universe <- logic's
Point and Space <- geometry's
Increment and Partition <- arithmetic's
Metaphor and Metonymy <- language's, algebra's
Energy and Entelechy <- physics' contents
Dynamis and Dunamis <- physics' activity
So, Continuity and Infinity are approached classically, then for the
paleo-classical and the post-modern account, is a usual sort of
formal treatment that has a "the logic" and "the objects of the
universe of mathematics" with "strong mathematical platonism",
then that the formalism has for rulial and regular accounts of
competing rulialities well-foundedness and well-ordering after
well-dispersion, the infinitary reasoning since the classical accounts
of the super-classical or Zeno's thought experiments, what makes for
a thorough sort of account of the modal, temporal, relevance logic,
in descriptive accounts of formalism, for infinitary and super-classical
reasoning, after axiomless deduction, for actual infinity
and replete continuity, mathematically.
Teleology and Ontology <- the objective and subjective
Science and Statistics <- the inter-subjective
So, "complementary duals" make a great account as to why the
competing rulialities result the analytical bridges instead of
the inductive impasses and have the structuralist realism of
the super-classical results of analysis and for quantifier
disambiguation and the extraction of mathematical implicits
thusly a greater account of reason and mathematically, and
in its discourse meeting the requirements and desiderata of
both "strong mathematical platonism" and "strong logicist positivism",
that there's one good theory and any number of ways to talk about it.
"Foundations", "Sole Foundations", "True Foundations"
There's a paleo-classical post-modern realist structuralist's
mathematics, then also about the intelligence and wisdom and knowledge
and science,
Intelligence and Wisdom
Knowledge and Science
about the real, the natural, and the rational, and the reasonable,
De Re and De Natura
De Res and De Racio
then, thusly, there's one good theory at all that's an Aristotlean
realism and actualized for Aristotle, and a Hegelian idealism and
with a wider, fuller dialectic for Hegel, and that's the one there is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116g37$744h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346778 |
On 6/20/2026 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/20/2026 08:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this:
>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q
>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted.
>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts.
>>>
>>> Good. Let's take that as a given.
>>>
>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>> - The moon is made of green cheese.
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts
>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is
>> already encoded.
>>
>
>
> Hm. Here the idea is that there are no more "meta-theories",
> of what's a "super-theory", that's a "mono-heno-theory",
> among various accounts of "heno-theories", any sort "theory".
>
> So, giving the "fundamental question of metaphysics" ("why is
> there something rather than nothing?"), and, what it is, starts
> with an idea of a universe of Truth, all the logical truisms
> and the grounds for a logical universe, then that the "paradox"
> of quantification gives an example "Confessing Liar", that
> is itself, a template and example of what would be un-true,
> yet only as found and discovered among all the truth. This
> invokes ideas like "univocity", about there being a "Comenius language"
> of all the truths, then the haeccity and quiddity, or "thing-nesses",
> these are archaic terms yet common since about at least 800 years.
>
> So, the Bible and the Vedas have examples, for example starting
> with "in the beginning ..." about a space of geometry and the
> contents of the Space-Time, and "in the beginning..." about the word
> and the light of the word, and the Atman and Brahman as giving accounts
> of inter-subjective objectivity, then with Zeno's arguments after
> Heraclitus for dual monism and Parmenides for a wider, fuller dialectic,
> the pre-Socratics or Eleatics, making the paleo-classical account, of
> the most common references, for discourse and reason,
> about the objects of mathematics and physics, and language and
> knowledge. Then, since the Aristotlean, and with the wider and fuller
> dialetic of the full Aristotlean and Aristotlean realism, and then
> since the Scholastics and the renewed Aristotlean, DesCartes and the
> enlightened rationality, Leibnitz and the universals, then Kant and
> Hegel bring Being and Nothing, and the sublime and ding-an-sich and the
> fuller dialectic, these are elements of the canon and the dogma and
> the doctrine.
>
> A "heno-theory", then, a "one-theory", basically has logical elements
> in the theory and gets connected via language to non-logical or
> properly-logical objects, any account of abstraction or description
> basically has that a "heno-theory" is a realist structuralist's model
> of a theory, that models other theories. Then the idea of a
> mono-heno-theory is again that it's a one theory with all the truth,
> where truth
> is the quantity and truth is conserved, and the universe is full of it,
> then that any other exercise in theory is an exercise in it.
>
>
> Void and Universe <- logic's
> Point and Space <- geometry's
> Increment and Partition <- arithmetic's
> Metaphor and Metonymy <- language's, algebra's
> Energy and Entelechy <- physics' contents
> Dynamis and Dunamis <- physics' activity
>
>
> So, Continuity and Infinity are approached classically, then for the
> paleo-classical and the post-modern account, is a usual sort of
> formal treatment that has a "the logic" and "the objects of the
> universe of mathematics" with "strong mathematical platonism",
> then that the formalism has for rulial and regular accounts of
> competing rulialities well-foundedness and well-ordering after
> well-dispersion, the infinitary reasoning since the classical accounts
> of the super-classical or Zeno's thought experiments, what makes for
> a thorough sort of account of the modal, temporal, relevance logic,
> in descriptive accounts of formalism, for infinitary and super-classical
> reasoning, after axiomless deduction, for actual infinity
> and replete continuity, mathematically.
>
>
> Teleology and Ontology <- the objective and subjective
> Science and Statistics <- the inter-subjective
>
>
> So, "complementary duals" make a great account as to why the
> competing rulialities result the analytical bridges instead of
> the inductive impasses and have the structuralist realism of
> the super-classical results of analysis and for quantifier
> disambiguation and the extraction of mathematical implicits
> thusly a greater account of reason and mathematically, and
> in its discourse meeting the requirements and desiderata of
> both "strong mathematical platonism" and "strong logicist positivism",
> that there's one good theory and any number of ways to talk about it.
>
> "Foundations", "Sole Foundations", "True Foundations"
>
>
> There's a paleo-classical post-modern realist structuralist's
> mathematics, then also about the intelligence and wisdom and knowledge
> and science,
>
> Intelligence and Wisdom
> Knowledge and Science
>
> about the real, the natural, and the rational, and the reasonable,
>
> De Re and De Natura
> De Res and De Racio
>
> then, thusly, there's one good theory at all that's an Aristotlean
> realism and actualized for Aristotle, and a Hegelian idealism and
> with a wider, fuller dialectic for Hegel, and that's the one there is.
>
I only skimmed that digression from this point:
All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded
as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base"
for Proof Theoretic 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 | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <duudnS7wx9uIWav3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #346780 |
On 06/20/2026 09:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2026 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/20/2026 08:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this:
>>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q
>>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted.
>>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts.
>>>>
>>>> Good. Let's take that as a given.
>>>>
>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese.
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts
>>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is
>>> already encoded.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hm. Here the idea is that there are no more "meta-theories",
>> of what's a "super-theory", that's a "mono-heno-theory",
>> among various accounts of "heno-theories", any sort "theory".
>>
>> So, giving the "fundamental question of metaphysics" ("why is
>> there something rather than nothing?"), and, what it is, starts
>> with an idea of a universe of Truth, all the logical truisms
>> and the grounds for a logical universe, then that the "paradox"
>> of quantification gives an example "Confessing Liar", that
>> is itself, a template and example of what would be un-true,
>> yet only as found and discovered among all the truth. This
>> invokes ideas like "univocity", about there being a "Comenius language"
>> of all the truths, then the haeccity and quiddity, or "thing-nesses",
>> these are archaic terms yet common since about at least 800 years.
>>
>> So, the Bible and the Vedas have examples, for example starting
>> with "in the beginning ..." about a space of geometry and the
>> contents of the Space-Time, and "in the beginning..." about the word
>> and the light of the word, and the Atman and Brahman as giving accounts
>> of inter-subjective objectivity, then with Zeno's arguments after
>> Heraclitus for dual monism and Parmenides for a wider, fuller dialectic,
>> the pre-Socratics or Eleatics, making the paleo-classical account, of
>> the most common references, for discourse and reason,
>> about the objects of mathematics and physics, and language and
>> knowledge. Then, since the Aristotlean, and with the wider and fuller
>> dialetic of the full Aristotlean and Aristotlean realism, and then
>> since the Scholastics and the renewed Aristotlean, DesCartes and the
>> enlightened rationality, Leibnitz and the universals, then Kant and
>> Hegel bring Being and Nothing, and the sublime and ding-an-sich and the
>> fuller dialectic, these are elements of the canon and the dogma and
>> the doctrine.
>>
>> A "heno-theory", then, a "one-theory", basically has logical elements
>> in the theory and gets connected via language to non-logical or
>> properly-logical objects, any account of abstraction or description
>> basically has that a "heno-theory" is a realist structuralist's model
>> of a theory, that models other theories. Then the idea of a
>> mono-heno-theory is again that it's a one theory with all the truth,
>> where truth
>> is the quantity and truth is conserved, and the universe is full of it,
>> then that any other exercise in theory is an exercise in it.
>>
>>
>> Void and Universe <- logic's
>> Point and Space <- geometry's
>> Increment and Partition <- arithmetic's
>> Metaphor and Metonymy <- language's, algebra's
>> Energy and Entelechy <- physics' contents
>> Dynamis and Dunamis <- physics' activity
>>
>>
>> So, Continuity and Infinity are approached classically, then for the
>> paleo-classical and the post-modern account, is a usual sort of
>> formal treatment that has a "the logic" and "the objects of the
>> universe of mathematics" with "strong mathematical platonism",
>> then that the formalism has for rulial and regular accounts of
>> competing rulialities well-foundedness and well-ordering after
>> well-dispersion, the infinitary reasoning since the classical accounts
>> of the super-classical or Zeno's thought experiments, what makes for
>> a thorough sort of account of the modal, temporal, relevance logic,
>> in descriptive accounts of formalism, for infinitary and super-classical
>> reasoning, after axiomless deduction, for actual infinity
>> and replete continuity, mathematically.
>>
>>
>> Teleology and Ontology <- the objective and subjective
>> Science and Statistics <- the inter-subjective
>>
>>
>> So, "complementary duals" make a great account as to why the
>> competing rulialities result the analytical bridges instead of
>> the inductive impasses and have the structuralist realism of
>> the super-classical results of analysis and for quantifier
>> disambiguation and the extraction of mathematical implicits
>> thusly a greater account of reason and mathematically, and
>> in its discourse meeting the requirements and desiderata of
>> both "strong mathematical platonism" and "strong logicist positivism",
>> that there's one good theory and any number of ways to talk about it.
>>
>> "Foundations", "Sole Foundations", "True Foundations"
>>
>>
>> There's a paleo-classical post-modern realist structuralist's
>> mathematics, then also about the intelligence and wisdom and knowledge
>> and science,
>>
>> Intelligence and Wisdom
>> Knowledge and Science
>>
>> about the real, the natural, and the rational, and the reasonable,
>>
>> De Re and De Natura
>> De Res and De Racio
>>
>> then, thusly, there's one good theory at all that's an Aristotlean
>> realism and actualized for Aristotle, and a Hegelian idealism and
>> with a wider, fuller dialectic for Hegel, and that's the one there is.
>>
>
> I only skimmed that digression from this point:
> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded
> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base"
> for Proof Theoretic Semantics.
>
That's merely an account of "ontology in a vacuum"
and is bereft the needful for accounts of continuity and infinity,
and can't claim to resolve paradoxes it makes for itself.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116gq2$7buu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346782 |
On 6/20/2026 11:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/20/2026 09:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2026 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2026 08:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this:
>>>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q
>>>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted.
>>>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good. Let's take that as a given.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese.
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts
>>>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is
>>>> already encoded.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hm. Here the idea is that there are no more "meta-theories",
>>> of what's a "super-theory", that's a "mono-heno-theory",
>>> among various accounts of "heno-theories", any sort "theory".
>>>
>>> So, giving the "fundamental question of metaphysics" ("why is
>>> there something rather than nothing?"), and, what it is, starts
>>> with an idea of a universe of Truth, all the logical truisms
>>> and the grounds for a logical universe, then that the "paradox"
>>> of quantification gives an example "Confessing Liar", that
>>> is itself, a template and example of what would be un-true,
>>> yet only as found and discovered among all the truth. This
>>> invokes ideas like "univocity", about there being a "Comenius language"
>>> of all the truths, then the haeccity and quiddity, or "thing-nesses",
>>> these are archaic terms yet common since about at least 800 years.
>>>
>>> So, the Bible and the Vedas have examples, for example starting
>>> with "in the beginning ..." about a space of geometry and the
>>> contents of the Space-Time, and "in the beginning..." about the word
>>> and the light of the word, and the Atman and Brahman as giving accounts
>>> of inter-subjective objectivity, then with Zeno's arguments after
>>> Heraclitus for dual monism and Parmenides for a wider, fuller dialectic,
>>> the pre-Socratics or Eleatics, making the paleo-classical account, of
>>> the most common references, for discourse and reason,
>>> about the objects of mathematics and physics, and language and
>>> knowledge. Then, since the Aristotlean, and with the wider and fuller
>>> dialetic of the full Aristotlean and Aristotlean realism, and then
>>> since the Scholastics and the renewed Aristotlean, DesCartes and the
>>> enlightened rationality, Leibnitz and the universals, then Kant and
>>> Hegel bring Being and Nothing, and the sublime and ding-an-sich and the
>>> fuller dialectic, these are elements of the canon and the dogma and
>>> the doctrine.
>>>
>>> A "heno-theory", then, a "one-theory", basically has logical elements
>>> in the theory and gets connected via language to non-logical or
>>> properly-logical objects, any account of abstraction or description
>>> basically has that a "heno-theory" is a realist structuralist's model
>>> of a theory, that models other theories. Then the idea of a
>>> mono-heno-theory is again that it's a one theory with all the truth,
>>> where truth
>>> is the quantity and truth is conserved, and the universe is full of it,
>>> then that any other exercise in theory is an exercise in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Void and Universe <- logic's
>>> Point and Space <- geometry's
>>> Increment and Partition <- arithmetic's
>>> Metaphor and Metonymy <- language's, algebra's
>>> Energy and Entelechy <- physics' contents
>>> Dynamis and Dunamis <- physics' activity
>>>
>>>
>>> So, Continuity and Infinity are approached classically, then for the
>>> paleo-classical and the post-modern account, is a usual sort of
>>> formal treatment that has a "the logic" and "the objects of the
>>> universe of mathematics" with "strong mathematical platonism",
>>> then that the formalism has for rulial and regular accounts of
>>> competing rulialities well-foundedness and well-ordering after
>>> well-dispersion, the infinitary reasoning since the classical accounts
>>> of the super-classical or Zeno's thought experiments, what makes for
>>> a thorough sort of account of the modal, temporal, relevance logic,
>>> in descriptive accounts of formalism, for infinitary and super-classical
>>> reasoning, after axiomless deduction, for actual infinity
>>> and replete continuity, mathematically.
>>>
>>>
>>> Teleology and Ontology <- the objective and subjective
>>> Science and Statistics <- the inter-subjective
>>>
>>>
>>> So, "complementary duals" make a great account as to why the
>>> competing rulialities result the analytical bridges instead of
>>> the inductive impasses and have the structuralist realism of
>>> the super-classical results of analysis and for quantifier
>>> disambiguation and the extraction of mathematical implicits
>>> thusly a greater account of reason and mathematically, and
>>> in its discourse meeting the requirements and desiderata of
>>> both "strong mathematical platonism" and "strong logicist positivism",
>>> that there's one good theory and any number of ways to talk about it.
>>>
>>> "Foundations", "Sole Foundations", "True Foundations"
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a paleo-classical post-modern realist structuralist's
>>> mathematics, then also about the intelligence and wisdom and knowledge
>>> and science,
>>>
>>> Intelligence and Wisdom
>>> Knowledge and Science
>>>
>>> about the real, the natural, and the rational, and the reasonable,
>>>
>>> De Re and De Natura
>>> De Res and De Racio
>>>
>>> then, thusly, there's one good theory at all that's an Aristotlean
>>> realism and actualized for Aristotle, and a Hegelian idealism and
>>> with a wider, fuller dialectic for Hegel, and that's the one there is.
>>>
>>
>> I only skimmed that digression from this point:
>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded
>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base"
>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics.
>>
>
> That's merely an account of "ontology in a vacuum"
> and is bereft the needful for accounts of continuity and infinity,
> and can't claim to resolve paradoxes it makes for itself.
>
>
>
> Hilbert-Bernays paradox
>
>
All pathological self-reference derives a cycle
in the directly graph of the evaluation sequence
of the expression. This causes the expression to
be rejected as semantically incoherent input.
I handled this for the Liar Paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Olcott's Minimal Type Theory of Gödel's G
G ↔ ¬Prov_PA(⌜G⌝)
Directed Graph of evaluation sequence
00 ↔ 01 02
01 G
02 ¬ 03
03 Prov_PA 04
04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle indicates no well-founded justification
tree exists.
and the Halting Problem proofs
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly
determines that its input DD is ungrounded in its
atomic base according to the operational semantics
of the C programming language.
--
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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 13:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1116hn3$7l2f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346784 |
On 6/20/2026 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2026 11:47 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/20/2026 09:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2026 11:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 06/20/2026 08:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:57 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:36 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Better than the POE yet not as sound as this:
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevance Logic was always a stupid idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Disjunction introduction: P ∴ P ∨ Q
>>>>>>>>> is not allowed. No new premises can be inserted.
>>>>>>>>> This by itself prevent POE from being derived.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ ⊥ // out of which nothing comes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes that is one element of what are now called atomic facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good. Let's take that as a given.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the following statement true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true:
>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun.
>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is hypothesized that all of the empirical atomic facts
>>>>> are encoded. This means that what the Moon is made of is
>>>>> already encoded.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hm. Here the idea is that there are no more "meta-theories",
>>>> of what's a "super-theory", that's a "mono-heno-theory",
>>>> among various accounts of "heno-theories", any sort "theory".
>>>>
>>>> So, giving the "fundamental question of metaphysics" ("why is
>>>> there something rather than nothing?"), and, what it is, starts
>>>> with an idea of a universe of Truth, all the logical truisms
>>>> and the grounds for a logical universe, then that the "paradox"
>>>> of quantification gives an example "Confessing Liar", that
>>>> is itself, a template and example of what would be un-true,
>>>> yet only as found and discovered among all the truth. This
>>>> invokes ideas like "univocity", about there being a "Comenius language"
>>>> of all the truths, then the haeccity and quiddity, or "thing-nesses",
>>>> these are archaic terms yet common since about at least 800 years.
>>>>
>>>> So, the Bible and the Vedas have examples, for example starting
>>>> with "in the beginning ..." about a space of geometry and the
>>>> contents of the Space-Time, and "in the beginning..." about the word
>>>> and the light of the word, and the Atman and Brahman as giving accounts
>>>> of inter-subjective objectivity, then with Zeno's arguments after
>>>> Heraclitus for dual monism and Parmenides for a wider, fuller
>>>> dialectic,
>>>> the pre-Socratics or Eleatics, making the paleo-classical account, of
>>>> the most common references, for discourse and reason,
>>>> about the objects of mathematics and physics, and language and
>>>> knowledge. Then, since the Aristotlean, and with the wider and fuller
>>>> dialetic of the full Aristotlean and Aristotlean realism, and then
>>>> since the Scholastics and the renewed Aristotlean, DesCartes and the
>>>> enlightened rationality, Leibnitz and the universals, then Kant and
>>>> Hegel bring Being and Nothing, and the sublime and ding-an-sich and the
>>>> fuller dialectic, these are elements of the canon and the dogma and
>>>> the doctrine.
>>>>
>>>> A "heno-theory", then, a "one-theory", basically has logical elements
>>>> in the theory and gets connected via language to non-logical or
>>>> properly-logical objects, any account of abstraction or description
>>>> basically has that a "heno-theory" is a realist structuralist's model
>>>> of a theory, that models other theories. Then the idea of a
>>>> mono-heno-theory is again that it's a one theory with all the truth,
>>>> where truth
>>>> is the quantity and truth is conserved, and the universe is full of it,
>>>> then that any other exercise in theory is an exercise in it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Void and Universe <- logic's
>>>> Point and Space <- geometry's
>>>> Increment and Partition <- arithmetic's
>>>> Metaphor and Metonymy <- language's, algebra's
>>>> Energy and Entelechy <- physics' contents
>>>> Dynamis and Dunamis <- physics' activity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, Continuity and Infinity are approached classically, then for the
>>>> paleo-classical and the post-modern account, is a usual sort of
>>>> formal treatment that has a "the logic" and "the objects of the
>>>> universe of mathematics" with "strong mathematical platonism",
>>>> then that the formalism has for rulial and regular accounts of
>>>> competing rulialities well-foundedness and well-ordering after
>>>> well-dispersion, the infinitary reasoning since the classical accounts
>>>> of the super-classical or Zeno's thought experiments, what makes for
>>>> a thorough sort of account of the modal, temporal, relevance logic,
>>>> in descriptive accounts of formalism, for infinitary and super-
>>>> classical
>>>> reasoning, after axiomless deduction, for actual infinity
>>>> and replete continuity, mathematically.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Teleology and Ontology <- the objective and subjective
>>>> Science and Statistics <- the inter-subjective
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, "complementary duals" make a great account as to why the
>>>> competing rulialities result the analytical bridges instead of
>>>> the inductive impasses and have the structuralist realism of
>>>> the super-classical results of analysis and for quantifier
>>>> disambiguation and the extraction of mathematical implicits
>>>> thusly a greater account of reason and mathematically, and
>>>> in its discourse meeting the requirements and desiderata of
>>>> both "strong mathematical platonism" and "strong logicist positivism",
>>>> that there's one good theory and any number of ways to talk about it.
>>>>
>>>> "Foundations", "Sole Foundations", "True Foundations"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a paleo-classical post-modern realist structuralist's
>>>> mathematics, then also about the intelligence and wisdom and knowledge
>>>> and science,
>>>>
>>>> Intelligence and Wisdom
>>>> Knowledge and Science
>>>>
>>>> about the real, the natural, and the rational, and the reasonable,
>>>>
>>>> De Re and De Natura
>>>> De Res and De Racio
>>>>
>>>> then, thusly, there's one good theory at all that's an Aristotlean
>>>> realism and actualized for Aristotle, and a Hegelian idealism and
>>>> with a wider, fuller dialectic for Hegel, and that's the one there is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I only skimmed that digression from this point:
>>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded
>>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base"
>>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics.
>>>
>>
>> That's merely an account of "ontology in a vacuum"
>> and is bereft the needful for accounts of continuity and infinity,
>> and can't claim to resolve paradoxes it makes for itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hilbert-Bernays paradox
>>
>>
>
> All pathological self-reference derives a cycle
> in the directly graph of the evaluation sequence
> of the expression. This causes the expression to
> be rejected as semantically incoherent input.
>
Big words from someone who's unable to say if the following statement is
true:
--------------------------------------
At least one of the following statements is true:
- Earth is the third planet from the sun.
- The moon is made of green cheese.
--------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web