Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #645432 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-06-23 09:26 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 347 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
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> - 2026-06-25 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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 08:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 22:52 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:43 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- 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> - 2026-06-25 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> - 2026-06-25 08:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:34 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:18 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:23 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:20 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:13 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:21 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:19 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 19:48 +0000
Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:19 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:34 -0400
Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:11 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 19:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:29 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:06 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:28 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:32 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:38 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:48 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:51 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:01 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 21:43 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:53 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 20:04 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 15:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 15:08 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:49 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:06 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:00 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:26 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:21 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:14 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:57 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:25 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:42 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:53 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:02 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-26 12:14 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:07 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:17 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:55 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 18:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:58 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 08:34 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:05 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:37 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:25 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:17 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:29 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:39 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:16 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:40 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:54 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:22 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:30 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:36 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:52 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:59 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:50 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:11 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:15 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:21 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:53 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:59 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:13 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:33 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:31 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:09 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:43 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:13 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:44 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 08:16 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:41 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:23 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:34 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 18:14 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:02 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 09:58 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 13:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:29 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 14:07 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 17:42 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:10 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:51 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:40 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:46 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:32 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:22 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:36 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 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 Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-23 21:04 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 19:25 -0700
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
Page 1 of 18 [1] 2 3 … 18 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics |
| Message-ID | <110v2oa$25osr$1@dont-email.me> |
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/ -- 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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 14:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1111haj$2rebc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645432 |
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > Making sure to leave out > > Proof-theoretic semantics > (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > > Some people only memorize conventional views and reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize by rote mindset. -- 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 | 2026-06-19 10:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1112qpk$35eeo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645452 |
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. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1113dmf$3b090$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645456 |
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/ % This sentence is not true. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. Coherently shows that the Liar Paradox cannot be resolved to a well-founded justification tree. -- 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 | 2026-06-19 20:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11148q5$21ka$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645457 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > > On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: > >> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > >>> Making sure to leave out > >>> Proof-theoretic semantics > >>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) > >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >> Some people only memorize conventional views and > >> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject > > alternative views out-of-hand without review. > Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) > incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to > look into proof theoretic semantics. > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't even understand proof by contradiction. That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" section at the end: | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical | inferential definitions alike. Does this have any meaning? I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would ever challenge this deception. I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do this. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1114a36$3jhgk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
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. > > 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? > > I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has > purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a > web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would > ever challenge this deception. > > I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's > Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put > it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you > are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. > > Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely > what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a > central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do > this. > My basis in PTS is what is referred to in the Literature as Dag Prawitz Theory of Grounds and its extensions and elaborations. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,42&q=Prawitz+theory+of+grounds I came up with all this stuff on my own entirely on the basis of reverse-engineering from first principles. I only very recently found out that it has an existing basis in the work of others. These are the usual things that PTS refers to: Natural Deduction, Sequent Calculus, Martin-Löf Type Theory, Intuitionistic Logic. I extend the essence of PTS all the way to natural language formalized as CycL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1114av1$21ka$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645462 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, 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? > > I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has > > purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a > > web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would > > ever challenge this deception. > > I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's > > Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put > > it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you > > are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. > > Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely > > what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a > > central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do > > this. > My basis in PTS is what is referred to in the Literature > as Dag Prawitz Theory of Grounds and its extensions and > elaborations. > https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,42&q=Prawitz+theory+of+grounds That's non-responsive to my point, which I'll repeat: you are as clueless about PTS as you are about Gödel's Theorem. You are as ignorant of PTS as you are of mathematics. Refute me by responding directly to the points I made in my last post. > I came up with all this stuff on my own entirely on > the basis of reverse-engineering from first principles. > I only very recently found out that it has an existing > basis in the work of others. > These are the usual things that PTS refers to: > Natural Deduction, Sequent Calculus, Martin-Löf Type Theory, > Intuitionistic Logic. I extend the essence of PTS all the way > to natural language formalized as CycL. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL All things beyond your understanding, if they are coherent things at all. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 16:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1114c1n$3k2f9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645464 |
On 6/19/2026 4:05 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, 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? > >>> I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has >>> purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a >>> web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would >>> ever challenge this deception. > >>> I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's >>> Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put >>> it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you >>> are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. > >>> Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely >>> what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a >>> central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do >>> this. > > >> My basis in PTS is what is referred to in the Literature >> as Dag Prawitz Theory of Grounds and its extensions and >> elaborations. > >> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,42&q=Prawitz+theory+of+grounds > > That's non-responsive to my point, which I'll repeat: you are as clueless > about PTS as you are about Gödel's Theorem. You are as ignorant of PTS > as you are of mathematics. Refute me by responding directly to the > points I made in my last post. > You cannot possibly begin to see how PTS applies to Gödel's Theorem until you first have a complete and solid understanding of at least the gist of PTS. When I tell people this gist they simply choose to disbelieve me. That I even know the expression: "Dag Prawitz Theory of Grounds" proves that my understanding is not shallow. >> I came up with all this stuff on my own entirely on >> the basis of reverse-engineering from first principles. >> I only very recently found out that it has an existing >> basis in the work of others. > >> These are the usual things that PTS refers to: >> Natural Deduction, Sequent Calculus, Martin-Löf Type Theory, >> Intuitionistic Logic. I extend the essence of PTS all the way >> to natural language formalized as CycL. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CycL > > All things beyond your understanding, if they are coherent things at all. > >> -- >> 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1114afr$3jjho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
On 6/19/2026 3:49 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 6/19/26 1:28 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. >> >> 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? >> >> I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has >> purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a >> web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would >> ever challenge this deception. >> >> I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's >> Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put >> it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you >> are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. >> >> Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely >> what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a >> central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do >> this. >> > > u ever gunna write something that isn't totally saturated with various > fallacies alan? > I think that Alan did make a good start on the basis of the article that I linked. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 18:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1114jeu$3ltdf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
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. > > 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? > > I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has > purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a > web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would > ever challenge this deception. > > I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's > Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put > it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you > are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. > > Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely > what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a > central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do > this. > The field since 2016 has expanded to include what logicians would call quantifier free FOL. I will research this more so that I can explain my own ideas within the frame-of-reference of PTS. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6Z6dnQrJd8Qguav3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645466 |
On 06/19/2026 04:30 PM, 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. >> >> 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? >> >> I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has >> purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a >> web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would >> ever challenge this deception. >> >> I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's >> Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put >> it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you >> are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. >> >> Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely >> what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a >> central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do >> this. >> > > The field since 2016 has expanded to include what > logicians would call quantifier free FOL. > > I will research this more so that I can explain > my own ideas within the frame-of-reference of PTS. > > Such reductionisms as "term-free" or "constant-free" or "variable-free" or "quantifier-free" are simplifications that fail to include resolutions of the paradoxes of induction, quantification, identity, infinity, and continuity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11167jt$4i7e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645474 |
On 6/20/2026 12:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/19/2026 04:30 PM, 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. >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> I put it to everybody here that Peter Olcott has been bluffing. He has >>> purported to understand Proof-theoretic semantics and repeatedly cited a >>> web page far outside his own understanding, believing nobody else would >>> ever challenge this deception. >>> >>> I'm challenging it now. Peter, you have repeatedly stated that Gödel's >>> Incompleteness Theorem is unproven when one takes PTS as a basis. I put >>> it to you this is a lie, and that you are as clueless about PTS as you >>> are about Gödel's Theorem. Feel free to refute my assertion. >>> >>> Or, at the very least, explain in readily accessible English precisely >>> what is meant above by "logical constants" and how and why "they play a >>> central role in reasoning and inference". I put it to you you cannot do >>> this. >>> >> >> The field since 2016 has expanded to include what >> logicians would call quantifier free FOL. >> >> I will research this more so that I can explain >> my own ideas within the frame-of-reference of PTS. >> >> > > Such reductionisms as "term-free" or "constant-free" or "variable-free" > or "quantifier-free" are simplifications that fail to include > resolutions of the paradoxes of induction, quantification, identity, > infinity, and continuity. > > I take the basic principles of proof theoretic semantics and extend them to cover "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" Using the CycL language of the Cyc project. I have the original handbooks that were once published. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 21:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1114u9a$3o9p4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
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. > > 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. The was the original position: Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses thus not limited to logical constants. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6Z6dnQXJd8Rzuav3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645469 |
On 06/19/2026 07:35 PM, 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. >> >> 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. > > The was the original position: > Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses > thus not limited to logical constants. > One might aver that Huntington postulates are more relevant than Horn clauses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 23:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Q9qcnRXjkIcasKv3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645475 |
On 06/19/2026 10:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/19/2026 07:35 PM, 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> The was the original position: >> Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses >> thus not limited to logical constants. >> > > One might aver that Huntington postulates are more relevant than Horn > clauses. > > Horn clauses are useful idioms to declare or claim inductive completion about things like completion and compactness and tail recursion what would otherwise be inductive incompleteness, and thusly are merely notational, while Huntington postulates include actual accounts of quantifier disambiguation and the like about induction and counter-induction and super-classical completions, besides the usual reading that Huntington postulates are just a usual logic, which in the usual accounts of formal logic is merely "quasi-modal" logic, and ignorant of quantifier disambiguation and other notions of all the implicits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111683r$4nps$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645476 |
On 6/20/2026 1:04 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/19/2026 10:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 06/19/2026 07:35 PM, 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> The was the original position: >>> Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses >>> thus not limited to logical constants. >>> >> >> One might aver that Huntington postulates are more relevant than Horn >> clauses. >> >> > > Horn clauses are useful idioms to declare or claim inductive completion > about things like completion and compactness and tail recursion what > would otherwise be inductive incompleteness, and thusly are merely > notational, while Huntington postulates include actual accounts of > quantifier disambiguation and the like about induction and > counter-induction and super-classical completions, besides the usual > reading > that Huntington postulates are just a usual logic, which in the usual > accounts of formal logic is merely "quasi-modal" logic, and ignorant > of quantifier disambiguation and other notions of all the implicits. > > I referred to Horn Clauses and logical constants because people here know what those are. They also know that Prolog is based in Horn Clauses. That ties this final resolution to the Liar Paradox tightly to proof theoretic semantics. % This sentence is not true. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. Prolog finally once and for all resolves the Liar Paradox as semantically incoherent within the analytical framework of Proof Theoretical Semantics. It does this on the basis that the LP specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence, thus not a well founded justification tree. PTS itself has a jumble of different terms referring to the idea of a: "well founded justification tree" This varies author by author with no unified term. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11167n5$4i7e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645475 |
On 6/20/2026 12:27 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/19/2026 07:35 PM, 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> The was the original position: >> Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses >> thus not limited to logical constants. >> > > One might aver that Huntington postulates are more relevant than Horn > clauses. > > I am just saying where PTS is and it has gone way past logical constants yet not nearly as far as all knowledge that can be expressed in CycL formalized natural language. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 21:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1114ui9$3obja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
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" Never was an actual contradiction when properly formalized. The directed graph of its evaluation always had a cycle. % This sentence is not true. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. Prolog finally once and for all resolves the Liar Paradox as semantically incoherent within the analytical framework of Proof Theoretical Semantics. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:05 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1115hl1$3t1gi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645470 |
On 20/06/2026 05:40, 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" > > Never was an actual contradiction when properly > formalized. The directed graph of its evaluation > always had a cycle. > > % This sentence is not true. > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > Prolog finally once and for all resolves the Liar > Paradox as semantically incoherent within the > analytical framework of Proof Theoretical Semantics. That you post this irrelevancy as a response shows that you don't even know what the expression "proof by contradiction" means. What does it mean if a proof ends with something that superficially looks like a contradiction, e.g. 1 = 2 ? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 14:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116o3v$9s97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645470 |
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, thus you have no basis to assess these skills of mine. For 26 of 28 years I have only focused on pathological self-reference. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 18 [1] 2 3 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web