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 368 — 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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 22:52 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics 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> - 2026-07-08 10:29 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 14:07 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 17:42 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:10 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:51 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:40 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:46 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:32 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:22 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:36 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:52 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:54 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:06 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 11:56 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:06 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction 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: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:26 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:00 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:40 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:23 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 18:42 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 19:50 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:06 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 20:38 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:00 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 23:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:31 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 11:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:32 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:58 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 18:28 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:29 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:45 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:51 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs 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 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 10:09 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111ik70$3j5co$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346981 |
On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: > On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is a >>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics >>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the >>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>> environment >>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it >>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>> >>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>> >>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>> >>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>> false. >>>> >>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>> >>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>> theoretic semantics. >> >> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >> are not good enough. > > Is is dead obvious and completely clear example > of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using > generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in > Prolog. Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting different views about it -- and not even a resolution. Anyway, nice to see that you still don't disabree. >>> This is understandable for anyone that has no >>> idea what a directed graph is. >> >> Your understanding of understandability is far from the real thing. >> >>>>> This has been completely rewritten just now. >>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md >>>> >>>> The description is updated. The described is not updated. >> >>> It always was a proof theoretic halt prover >>> I just didn't have those terms until recently. >> >> It is not a prover. It does not prove. > > It proves that no canonical proof of DD reaching > its own final halt state exists within the operational > semantics of the C programming language for PTS halt > prover HHH. Irrelevant. That DD halts when executed is sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that it halts. To formulate that inference as a formal proof is trivial to anyone who knows the formal rules. >> It produces some execution trace >> but may end before termination, and presents its conclusion or crashes. > > Perhaps you have no idea what cycles in directed graphs are? Doesn't really matter, especially when they are not even mentioned. The words are well known and the definitions can be found on the web. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111jb9u$3qb0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346988 |
On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently >>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>> environment >>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>> or it >>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>> >>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>> false. >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>> >>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>> theoretic semantics. >>> >>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>> are not good enough. >> >> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >> Prolog. > > Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting > different views about it -- and not even a resolution. > If others did not reject mine out-of-hand without review they could understand that it is final. It is very similar to Kripke's view in that we both determine that the Liar Paradox is ungrounded. https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf My view is simpler in that it correctly determines that the Liar Paradox is ungrounded in a proof theoretic atomic base with a tiny snippet of Prolog. > Anyway, nice to see that you still don't disabree. > >>>> This is understandable for anyone that has no >>>> idea what a directed graph is. >>> >>> Your understanding of understandability is far from the real thing. >>> >>>>>> This has been completely rewritten just now. >>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md >>>>> >>>>> The description is updated. The described is not updated. >>> >>>> It always was a proof theoretic halt prover >>>> I just didn't have those terms until recently. >>> >>> It is not a prover. It does not prove. >> >> It proves that no canonical proof of DD reaching >> its own final halt state exists within the operational >> semantics of the C programming language for PTS halt >> prover HHH. > > Irrelevant. That DD halts when executed is sufficient for a reasonable > person to conclude that it halts. To formulate that inference as a > formal proof is trivial to anyone who knows the formal rules. > >>> It produces some execution trace >>> but may end before termination, and presents its conclusion or crashes. >> >> Perhaps you have no idea what cycles in directed graphs are? > > Doesn't really matter, especially when they are not even mentioned. > The words are well known and the definitions can be found on the > web. > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111l5h8$aqm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346997 |
On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>>> or it >>>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>> false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>> >>>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>>> are not good enough. >>> >>> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >>> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >>> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >>> Prolog. >> >> Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting >> different views about it -- and not even a resolution. >> > > If others did not reject mine out-of-hand > without review they could understand that > it is final. Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 07:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111lt3v$hp1v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347012 |
On 6/26/2026 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a paradox. The two are different things. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction is a statement which is necessarily false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A paradox is a statement to which no truth value can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for >>>>>>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove >>>>>>>>> that DD >>>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>>>> or it >>>>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>>>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>>>> are not good enough. >>>> >>>> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >>>> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >>>> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >>>> Prolog. >>> >>> Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting >>> different views about it -- and not even a resolution. >>> >> >> If others did not reject mine out-of-hand >> without review they could understand that >> it is final. > > Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should > understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion. > There are many people that are certain that the Earth is flat. -- 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 10:16 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111ntc3$13irc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #347021 |
On 26/06/2026 15:59, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2026 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a paradox. The two are different things. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction is a statement which is necessarily false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A paradox is a statement to which no truth value can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove >>>>>>>>>> that DD >>>>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that >>>>>>>>>> environment DD >>>>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be >>>>>>>>>> aborted or it >>>>>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>>>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>>>>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>>>>> are not good enough. >>>>> >>>>> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >>>>> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >>>>> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >>>>> Prolog. >>>> >>>> Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting >>>> different views about it -- and not even a resolution. >>>> >>> >>> If others did not reject mine out-of-hand >>> without review they could understand that >>> it is final. >> >> Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should >> understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion. > > There are many people that are certain that the Earth is flat. And some of them can present evidence to support that claim. But does proof theoretic semantcs mentioned above offer anything to determine the correctness of that claim? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 12:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118c1l$n31e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346791 |
On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>> >>> >>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>> "This sentence is not true" >> >> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >> >> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >> can be consistently assigned. >> >> André > > Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by > contradiction applies, You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove many theorems. If you really had said nothing about proofs by contradiction nobody would have no reason to say that you don't understand them, But you have said so much about them or in respose to them or comments about them that there is a motivation and a good basis to point out that you don't understand them. If you don't want that your defects are pointed out then don't post the evidence. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119aus$107fm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346829 |
On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>> "This sentence is not true" >>> >>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>> >>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>> can be consistently assigned. >>> >>> André >> >> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >> contradiction applies, > > You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by > contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove > many theorems. > Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to every proof theoretic semantics prover. All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. -- 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 | phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 12:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9qqbiFi2hlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #346843 |
olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by >> contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove >> many theorems. >> > > Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) > shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to > every proof theoretic semantics prover. > > All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been > working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. > > Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle > in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is > the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. > > You would confuse it with a thin mint girl scout cookie if the rest of the people were doing it, not to mention jump off a cliff. You are the poster boy for mathematical band wagon riding. -- We eat the night, we drink the time Make our dreams come true And hungry eyes are passing by On streets we call the zoo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111akcf$1aic6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346843 |
On 21/06/2026 21:36, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by >> contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove >> many theorems. >> > > Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) > shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to > every proof theoretic semantics prover. > > All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been > working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. > > Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle > in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is > the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. Nice to see that you don't disagree. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 00:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oN-cnXu5np8qfKX3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #346886 |
On 06/21/2026 11:23 PM, Mikko wrote: > On 21/06/2026 21:36, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>> >>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>> >>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>> >>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>> contradiction applies, >>> >>> You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by >>> contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove >>> many theorems. >>> >> >> Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) >> shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to >> every proof theoretic semantics prover. >> >> All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been >> working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. >> >> Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle >> in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is >> the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. > > Nice to see that you don't disagree. > > "PSR" is "Principle of Sufficient Reason", here for a "Principle of Thorough Reason". Graphs may have cycles. That's what "thorough" is for. Pointing out quasi-modal logic's deficiencies then using them to imagine them away is delusional (or, "generously", ignorant).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11165rj$435a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346742 |
On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>> section at the end: > >>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>> Does this have any meaning? > >> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >> effort if it is possible at all. > > Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1116but$1q26$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #346760 |
[ Followup-To: set] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics > >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) > >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and > >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject > >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) > >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to > >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. > >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in > >>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is > >>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't > >>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered > >>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that > >>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" > >>> section at the end: > >>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been > >>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role > >>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and > >>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined > >>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential > >>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical > >>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>> Does this have any meaning? > >> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the > >> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and > >> effort if it is possible at all. > > Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it does. We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116cn6$63mn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346773 |
On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: > >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or > at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it > does. > You have failed to sufficiently understand the gist of proof theoretic semantics. This applies to your next statement as well. You must have a 100% complete understanding of the gist of PTS and then my ideas are proven coherent and true. > We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not > high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, > and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some > mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and > PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1116dtl$1q26$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #346775 |
[ Followup-To: set] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics > >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) > >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and > >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject > >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) > >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to > >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. > >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in > >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is > >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't > >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be > >>>>> bothered to read it any further. If it actually says anything at > >>>>> all, that something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion > >>>>> and Outlook" section at the end: > >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been > >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role > >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and > >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined > >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential > >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical > >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the > >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and > >>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or > > at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it > > does. > You have failed to sufficiently understand the gist of proof > theoretic semantics. No, I have understood it well enough. It is an immature branch of philosophy which gives mathematical results the same as standard logic does. It is _you_ who have failed sufficiently to understand PTS. Otherwise you could answer questions about it. > This applies to your next statement as well. You must have a 100% > complete understanding of the gist of PTS and then my ideas are proven > coherent and true. That is a condescending lie. Your ideas are very far from proven and true, and I don't know anybody who isn't you who finds them coherent. However Gödel's Theorem is proven and true. If it contradicts your ideas, then your ideas are invalid. If you dispute that, then you must show that an essential part of a proof of the theorem is somehow mistaken. This you cannot do, due to your not understanding Gödel's Theorem or its proof, and your not understanding the notion of a mathematical proof. > > We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not > > high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, > > and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some > > mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and > > PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116fjk$716u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346777 |
On 6/20/2026 11:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>> bothered to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>> all, that something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>> and Outlook" section at the end: > >>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > >>> Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or >>> at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it >>> does. > > >> You have failed to sufficiently understand the gist of proof >> theoretic semantics. > > No, I have understood it well enough. It is an immature branch of > philosophy which gives mathematical results the same as standard logic > does. It is _you_ who have failed sufficiently to understand PTS. > Otherwise you could answer questions about it. > PTS has been around since the 1930's Within proof theoretic semantics expressions ungrounded in an atomic base cannot derive PTS meaning. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 22:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112v32b$2hohf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346773 |
On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: > >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or > at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it > does. > When the entire body of general knowledge expressed in language is a finite list of atomic facts and relations between these facts then truth becomes computable by lookup table for this entire body. > We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not > high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, > and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some > mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and > PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > -- 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 general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118dct$nf7k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346760 |
On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >> >>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >> >>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >> >>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>> bothered >>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>> section at the end: >> >>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >>>> role >>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>> defined >>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>> logical >>>> | inferential definitions alike. >> >>>> Does this have any meaning? >> >>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>> effort if it is possible at all. >> >> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > > It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine are of claims that are true on some other basis. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119tkt$15ama$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346832 |
On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>> >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>> bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: >>> >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >>>>> role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, >>>>> and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>> defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>> logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>> >>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>> >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>> >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>> What it >> >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we > usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational > tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine > are of claims that are true on some other basis. > The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove that these are lies to every level of understanding between kindergarten and PhD. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111akjn$1aic6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #346862 |
On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>> >>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>> bothered >>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>> section at the end: >>>> >>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>> central role >>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>> defined >>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>>> logical >>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>> >>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>> >>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>> >>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>> What it >>> >>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >> >> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >> are of claims that are true on some other basis. > > The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies > of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove > that these are lies to every level of understanding > between kindergarten and PhD. You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single lie that would matter to typical people. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 00:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oN-cnXq5np-bf6X3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #346887 |
On 06/21/2026 11:27 PM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>> >>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>> central role >>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>>>> logical >>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>> >>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>> >>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>> What it >>>> >>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>> >>> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >>> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >>> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >>> are of claims that are true on some other basis. >> >> The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies >> of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove >> that these are lies to every level of understanding >> between kindergarten and PhD. > > You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single > lie that would matter to typical people. > "Most people" would absolutely reject "material implication" and the "quasi-modal" with regards to common sense and practical contingencies of ongoing, modal, temporal, daily life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web