Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #645287

Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/26/2026 11:31 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 05/26/2026 08:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/26/2026 10:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2026 07:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2026 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/2026 16:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>> that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
>>>>>> relations between finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
>>>>>> is categorically impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should be able to prove your thesis from reasonable definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then Church-Turing should prove theirs.
>>>>
>>>> To the structuralists, meaning is a not an
>>>> inherent aspect of a concept, but rather a
>>>> property of the relationships between the
>>>> concept and all other concepts.
>>>>
>>>> This framework originated with the Swiss
>>>> linguist Ferdinand de Saussure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's usually enough model theory then, models of relations.
>>>
>>
>> It is not at all conventional truth conditional semantics.
>> It seems to be simple type theory through the lens of
>> proof theoretic semantics.
>>
>>> People in axiomatic set theory often forget or don't know
>>> that to make all the models of relation has that there
>>> are all the sets, and later equivalence classes, to
>>> provide what are the sets that are the relations.
>>>
>>> Then, in the real world, physical objects as mathematical
>>> objects have all their relations as mathematical objects
>>> as physical objects, infinities of them.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, things like cardinals as "equivalence classes of sets
>>> under bijective relation" or real numbers as "equivalence
>>> classes of series that are Cauchy" have that those equivalence
>>> classes are often larger than ordinary sets in the ordinary set theory.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to keep staying in your cloud of abstractions
>> that have nothing to do with the kind of system that can
>> establish the truth of real world consequences.
>>
>>>
>>> Then, the physics of the real world is a continuum mechanics.
>>>
>>>
>>> People who'd prefer ordinary theories have already found
>>> that these accounts of the extra-ordinary always are so,
>>> then "structuralists" are simply those that observe that
>>> expansion-of-comprehension always makes structures, that
>>> making more-than-less a model-theory as with regards to
>>> proof-theory, and a theory with a universe.
>>>
>>> Then, whether the constructible universe is the universe,
>>> or V = L, gets into lots of accounts of assumptions or
>>> about Feferman's account then for whether that's hypocritical
>>> like Russell's "axiomatized ordinary" is to Mirimanoff's
>>> "natural extra-ordinary".
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyways it's simple to show that P.O.'s account is
>>> basically a fragmented pluralistic synthetic argument,
>>> about something like the paradoxes of identity, and that
>>> identity's defined by both x = x and x = V \ x.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why don't you just STFU until you first come to know
>> proof theoretic semantics. Without that all you have
>> is prejudice and bias.
>>
> 
> 
> Well, no, here there's an account of paradox-free reason,
> that there is one at all.
> 
> 
> That's all axiomatics is is "prejudice", before-judged,
> and all ordinary ruliality is, "bias", inductive bias.
> 
> 

I will dumb it down for you.
Every expression of language that cannot possibly be
grounded in a truth value is simply not truth apt.

All undecidability has always either been a misconception
or like the truth value of the Goldbach conjecture outside
of the body of current human knowledge.

> Then, a usual enough account of addressing "the fundamental
> question of metaphysics: why is there something rather
> than nothing" gets into an account of the Void and Universe,
> then for Point and Space and for Increment and Partition and
> for Metaphor and Metonymy, having a theory at all.
> 
> Then, principles (not axioms, say) _describe_ that the
> Inverse subsumes Contradiction and the Thorough subsumes
> the Sufficient, about the principles of excluded-middle
> and the principle of sufficient reason, that the Inverse
> makes for Diversity among complementary duals and Variety
> among like neighbors, and the Thorough makes for that
> Aristotle won't be made a fool, including for his accounts
> of where excluded-middle holds or doesn't and where the
> inductive inference suffices or doesn't.
> 
> Thusly it's a _one_ theory, a heno-theory, in which all
> the other accounts of theory get interpreted, a mono-heno-theory,
> that's also conveniently an account of any theory at all.
> 
> 
> Anyways it's simple to show that most all usual accounts
> that have only the Contradiction and not the Inverse and
> only the Sufficient and not the Thorough, are fragmented,
> pluralistic, and synthetic (and inconsistent). So, that's
> not just among retro-finitist crankety trolls, indeed it
> makes for that super-classical reasoning is first-class itself,
> and for ready demonstrations where yes/no questions have
> "yes AND no" answers and where inductive inference not only
> fails to suffice yet is shown suffices to fail.
> 
> 
> Then all sorts super-classical reasoning have resolving
> any sort of "paradox" otherwise in reasoning about the
> real world given competing inductive claims, about why
> for example there's calculus or even accounts of motion,
> which as mentioned can otherwise be destroyed by argument.
> 
> 
> Anyways, "two wrongs" is just more wrong.
> 
> 


-- 
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).

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 08:59 -0500
  Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-12 11:03 -0700
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 15:52 -0500
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 08:03 -0700
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 10:32 -0500
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 08:39 -0700
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 11:02 -0500
              yes another possible ct-thesis hole? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 09:45 -0700
              yet another possible ct-thesis hole??? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-13 09:49 -0700
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2026-05-24 17:49 +0000
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:21 -0700
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2026-05-24 17:34 +0000
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 13:16 -0500
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 12:56 -0600
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:05 -0500
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 13:11 -0600
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 14:16 -0500
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 14:36 -0700
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 15:45 -0600
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-24 23:26 -0700
                Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-25 09:18 -0500
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2026-06-23 11:36 +0000
  Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-26 10:56 +0300
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 09:01 -0500
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 08:37 -0700
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 10:50 -0500
          Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 09:31 -0700
            Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 12:05 -0500
              Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 22:54 -0700
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-27 10:21 +0300
  Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-06-14 13:52 +0100
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 08:12 -0500
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-15 20:50 -0500
    Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 13:13 -0500
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 19:15 -0500
      Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:37 -0500
        Re: Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be expressed as relations between finite strings Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:32 +0300

csiph-web