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 2 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 18 Next page →
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 15:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1116p0q$9b6g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645511 |
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>> >>> >>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>> "This sentence is not true" >> >> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >> >> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >> can be consistently assigned. >> >> André >> > > Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by > contradiction applies, False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. That you are unable to recognize this is proof that you don't understand proof by contradiction. > thus you have no basis to > assess these skills of mine. False, see above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58qcnTjhedgKd6v3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645513 |
On 06/20/2026 12:17 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>> "This sentence is not true" >>> >>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>> >>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>> can be consistently assigned. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >> contradiction applies, > > False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem proof, > Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been attempting > (and failing) to refute for years. > > That you are unable to recognize this is proof that you don't understand > proof by contradiction. > > >> thus you have no basis to >> assess these skills of mine. > False, see above. Hard constructivists don't even _accept_ proof-by-contradiction. Somehow then "structural realists" and "realist structuralists" may also be "hard constructivists" while "extreme rationalists". Since "quasi-modal material implication" has "see rule 1: last wins", it contradicts itself. The contrapositive is still a thing, about direct implication, yet it's reversible and results writing itself, not irreversible and resuling erasing itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116u63$bi7q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645515 |
On 6/20/2026 2:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/20/2026 12:17 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem proof, >> Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been attempting >> (and failing) to refute for years. >> >> That you are unable to recognize this is proof that you don't understand >> proof by contradiction. >> >> >>> thus you have no basis to >>> assess these skills of mine. >> False, see above. > > > > Hard constructivists don't even _accept_ proof-by-contradiction. > > > Somehow then "structural realists" and "realist structuralists" > may also be "hard constructivists" while "extreme rationalists". > > > Since "quasi-modal material implication" has "see rule 1: last wins", > it contradicts itself. > I am only taking about the way that "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" has always actually worked since the first caveman made his first distinctive grunt. By compartmentalizing my ideas into the categories that you disagree with you are blinding yourself. -- 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 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116rm6$as8p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645513 |
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>> "This sentence is not true" >>> >>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>> >>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>> can be consistently assigned. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >> contradiction applies, > > False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem proof, > Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been attempting > (and failing) to refute for years. > Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according to the operational semantics of the C programming language. HHH never sees any contradiction it only sees that its proof remains stuck in recursion. > That you are unable to recognize this is proof that you don't understand > proof by contradiction. > > >> thus you have no basis to >> assess these skills of mine. > False, see above. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 16:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1116shj$9b6g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645517 |
On 6/20/2026 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >> > > Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines > that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according > to the operational semantics of the C programming language. The above is unclear, as "HHH" and "DD" could refer to: - An algorithm, i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions that always produces the same output for a given input. - A C function which has a specific name and may contain any arbitrary instructions - A finite string implemented as a 32-bit function pointer. So please restate the above, qualifying whether each instance of "DD" and "HHH" used in a sentence refers to an algorithm, a C function, or a finite string. > > HHH never sees any contradiction it only sees that its proof > remains stuck in recursion. Algorithm HHH, C function HHH, or finite string HHH? > >> That you are unable to recognize this is proof that you don't >> understand proof by contradiction. >> >> >>> thus you have no basis to >>> assess these skills of mine. >> False, see above. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 16:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116v7i$brme$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645518 |
On 6/20/2026 3:17 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>> >>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>> >>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>> contradiction applies, >>> >>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>> >> >> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. > > The above is unclear, as "HHH" and "DD" could refer to: > The same one that I have been talking about for years. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 17:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1117016$c2ah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645522 |
On 6/20/2026 5:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 3:17 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> >>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>> contradiction applies, >>>> >>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>> >>> >>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >> >> The above is unclear, as "HHH" and "DD" could refer to: >> > The same one that I have been talking about for years. > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c > And is that "HHH" and "DD" (each time you use them in the above sentence) an algorithm, a C function, or a finite string?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:02 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118cqq$na2i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645518 |
On 20/06/2026 23:17, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>> >>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>> >>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>> contradiction applies, >>> >>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>> >> >> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. > > The above is unclear, as "HHH" and "DD" could refer to: > > - An algorithm, i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions that > always produces the same output for a given input. > - A C function which has a specific name and may contain any arbitrary > instructions > - A finite string implemented as a 32-bit function pointer. When used by Olcott it refers to the C function Olcott wrote and put to GitHub long before he fond out that there is cometning called "proof theoretic semantics". Or at least Olcott has said that he always means that. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 12:57 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118chf$n75e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645517 |
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >> > > Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines > that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according > to the operational semantics of the C programming language. That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119te8$159co$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645542 |
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>> >>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>> >>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>> contradiction applies, >>> >>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>> >> >> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. > > That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. > The exact operational semantics of C conclusively prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in these operational semantics because this input specifies non-terminating recursive simulation to HHH. To sum this up PTS would have HHH reject DDD. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 20:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1119us9$14ri4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645564 |
On 6/21/2026 7:51 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> >>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>> contradiction applies, >>>> >>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>> >>> >>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >> >> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >> > > The exact operational semantics of C conclusively > prove that the input DD Algorithm DD, C function DD, or finite string DD? > to HHH Algorithm HHH, C function HHH, or finite string HHH? > is ungrounded in > these operational semantics because this input > specifies non-terminating recursive simulation > to HHH. Algorithm HHH, C function HHH, or finite string HHH? > > To sum this up PTS would have HHH Algorithm HHH, C function HHH, or finite string HHH? > reject DDD. > Algorithm DD, C function DD, or finite string DD? Rejected out-of hand as unclear until you answer the above questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 10:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111anau$1bckd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645564 |
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>> >>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>> contradiction applies, >>>> >>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>> >>> >>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >> >> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. > > The exact operational semantics of C conclusively > prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in > these operational semantics because this input > specifies non-terminating recursive simulation > to HHH. Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it could be rejected by the compiler. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 08:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111bcei$1hog5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645582 |
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>>>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> André >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>> >>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've been >>>>> attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>> >>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >> >> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >> these operational semantics because this input >> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >> to HHH. > > Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics > do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD > halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the > C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment > it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD > halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it > could be rejected by the compiler. > Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). This would be dead obvious if you were not totally clueless about Prolog. % This sentence is not true. ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). false. This has been completely rewritten just now. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md -- 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 | 2026-06-22 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <IpucnWvOkObo5aT3nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645592 |
On 06/22/2026 06:13 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>> who can't >>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which >>>>>>>> is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>> >>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've >>>>>> been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>> >>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>> >>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>> these operational semantics because this input >>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>> to HHH. >> >> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics >> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the >> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment >> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it >> could be rejected by the compiler. >> > > Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way > to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). > > This would be dead obvious if you were not totally > clueless about Prolog. > > % This sentence is not true. > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. > > This has been completely rewritten just now. > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md > Just ignoring "pathological self-reference" doesn't make it go away, and anybody can declare the "facts" about it. It seems a cloak of the empirical fallacy masquerading as the triumph of reason, then axiomatizing itself complete with what would be false-axioms, a futile, intransigent effort doomed to be outmoded and simply inductive ignorance of the not-quite-invincible sort. As a satire it's more pathetic than profound. Instead, what reasoners find is the great Renaissance (idealism) and Enlightenment (rationalism) as an "extreme rationalism" account, that DesCartes and Leibnitz, and Plato and Kant, can both be proud, bring back together the analytical tradition and the idealistic tradition as for a dually-self-infraconsistent paraconsistent-dialetheic ur-theory that provides both the Euclidean and Archimedean (geometry and arithmetic) and super-Euclidean and super-Archimedean (with infinity and the original), making it so that the Pythagorean (amost-all rational) and Cantorian (almost-all transcendental) are made whole in a paleo-classical post-modern account with the strong mathematical platonism with the perfect circles and straight lines and the strengthened (instead of weak) logicist positivism in accounts of heno-theories and a mono-heno-theory, that gives modal, temporal, relevance logic as a "the logic", and makes possible the overall conscientious and thorough efforts of the conscientious logician, mathematician, statistician, scientist, and physicist, among large, competent, conscientious, co-operative reasoners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 13:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111bttl$1ngn8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645602 |
On 6/22/2026 1:01 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/22/2026 06:13 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>> who can't >>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which >>>>>>>>> is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've >>>>>>> been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>> >>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>>> >>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>> to HHH. >>> >>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics >>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the >>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment >>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it >>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>> >> >> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >> >> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >> clueless about Prolog. >> >> % This sentence is not true. >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> This has been completely rewritten just now. >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md >> > > Just ignoring "pathological self-reference" doesn't make it > go away, and anybody can declare the "facts" about it. > In other words you are clueless about Prolog. Find out what the above Prolog expression means making sure that you find out that it is not simply ignoring PSR and then only after that get back to me -- 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 | 2026-06-22 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gMGdnSg4EeFFEaT3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645602 |
On 06/22/2026 11:01 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 06/22/2026 06:13 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>> who can't >>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which >>>>>>>>> is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've >>>>>>> been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>> >>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>>> >>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>> to HHH. >>> >>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics >>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the >>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment >>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it >>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>> >> >> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >> >> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >> clueless about Prolog. >> >> % This sentence is not true. >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> This has been completely rewritten just now. >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md >> > > Just ignoring "pathological self-reference" doesn't make it > go away, and anybody can declare the "facts" about it. > > It seems a cloak of the empirical fallacy masquerading as > the triumph of reason, then axiomatizing itself complete > with what would be false-axioms, a futile, intransigent > effort doomed to be outmoded and simply inductive ignorance > of the not-quite-invincible sort. > > As a satire it's more pathetic than profound. > > > > Instead, what reasoners find is the great Renaissance (idealism) > and Enlightenment (rationalism) as an "extreme rationalism" account, > that DesCartes and Leibnitz, and Plato and Kant, can both be proud, > bring back together the analytical tradition and the idealistic > tradition as for a dually-self-infraconsistent paraconsistent-dialetheic > ur-theory that provides both the Euclidean and Archimedean (geometry and > arithmetic) and super-Euclidean and super-Archimedean > (with infinity and the original), making it so that the Pythagorean > (amost-all rational) and Cantorian (almost-all transcendental) are > made whole in a paleo-classical post-modern account with the > strong mathematical platonism with the perfect circles and straight > lines and the strengthened (instead of weak) logicist positivism > in accounts of heno-theories and a mono-heno-theory, that > gives modal, temporal, relevance logic as a "the logic", > and makes possible the overall conscientious and thorough efforts > of the conscientious logician, mathematician, statistician, scientist, > and physicist, among large, competent, conscientious, co-operative > reasoners. > > Don't take the criticism particularly personally - it's an endemic failure of 20'th century logic since Compte and Boole and Russell and Carnap, and while Derrida makes a valiant reading of Husserl's Meditations on why geometry is real, and not all 20'th century philosophers and logicians are inconstant anti-idealist hypocrites, with for example Collingwood and Winston H.F. Barnes and A.C. Ewing, and of course the P.F. Strawson sometimes and one of the Lewis', and for example Anderson with modal temporal relevance logic, and about Corcoran with axiomless natural deduction and Huntington's greater disambiguating postulates, and for example with Hilbert as Bernays notes about a postulate of continuity, and where most any mathematician or physicist is at least sometimes declaredly a mathematical platonist like Goedel and Einstein and even Russell submits and as Quine says, in their apologetics, then having a true theory with the truth in it and about the truth and the mathematical truth, it's not very difficult to repair it, and it results as with a theory that's strong enough for arithmetic and geometry, including with infinity and continuity, and also resistant to meddling, since Aristotle (with Chrysippus) won't be made a fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 08:39 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111d65m$21jq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645592 |
On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>> who can't >>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The >>>>>>>> two are different things. A contradiction is a statement which >>>>>>>> is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth >>>>>>>> value can be consistently assigned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>> >>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've >>>>>> been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>> >>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>> >>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>> these operational semantics because this input >>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>> to HHH. >> >> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics >> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the >> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment >> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it >> could be rejected by the compiler. > > Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way > to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). > > This would be dead obvious if you were not totally > clueless about Prolog. > > % This sentence is not true. > ?- LP = not(true(LP)). > LP = not(true(LP)). > ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). > false. Nice to see that you don't disagree. > This has been completely rewritten just now. > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md The description is updated. The described is not updated. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111jb9u$3qb0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645622 |
On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently >>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>> environment >>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>> or it >>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>> >>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>> false. >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>> >>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>> theoretic semantics. >>> >>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>> are not good enough. >> >> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >> Prolog. > > Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting > different views about it -- and not even a resolution. > If others did not reject mine out-of-hand without review they could understand that it is final. It is very similar to Kripke's view in that we both determine that the Liar Paradox is ungrounded. https://www.impan.pl/~kz/truthseminar/Kripke_Outline.pdf My view is simpler in that it correctly determines that the Liar Paradox is ungrounded in a proof theoretic atomic base with a tiny snippet of Prolog. > Anyway, nice to see that you still don't disabree. > >>>> This is understandable for anyone that has no >>>> idea what a directed graph is. >>> >>> Your understanding of understandability is far from the real thing. >>> >>>>>> This has been completely rewritten just now. >>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md >>>>> >>>>> The description is updated. The described is not updated. >>> >>>> It always was a proof theoretic halt prover >>>> I just didn't have those terms until recently. >>> >>> It is not a prover. It does not prove. >> >> It proves that no canonical proof of DD reaching >> its own final halt state exists within the operational >> semantics of the C programming language for PTS halt >> prover HHH. > > Irrelevant. That DD halts when executed is sufficient for a reasonable > person to conclude that it halts. To formulate that inference as a > formal proof is trivial to anyone who knows the formal rules. > >>> It produces some execution trace >>> but may end before termination, and presents its conclusion or crashes. >> >> Perhaps you have no idea what cycles in directed graphs are? > > Doesn't really matter, especially when they are not even mentioned. > The words are well known and the definitions can be found on the > web. > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 09:17 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111l5h8$aqm1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645656 |
On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>>> or it >>>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>> false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>> >>>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>>> are not good enough. >>> >>> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >>> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >>> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >>> Prolog. >> >> Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting >> different views about it -- and not even a resolution. >> > > If others did not reject mine out-of-hand > without review they could understand that > it is final. Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-26 07:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111lt3v$hp1v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645671 |
On 6/26/2026 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a paradox. The two are different things. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction is a statement which is necessarily false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A paradox is a statement to which no truth value can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for >>>>>>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove >>>>>>>>> that DD >>>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>>>> or it >>>>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>>>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>>>> are not good enough. >>>> >>>> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >>>> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >>>> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >>>> Prolog. >>> >>> Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting >>> different views about it -- and not even a resolution. >>> >> >> If others did not reject mine out-of-hand >> without review they could understand that >> it is final. > > Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should > understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion. > There are many people that are certain that the Earth is flat. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web