Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #646250 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-07-16 09:47 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:24 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 15:26 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:34 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 09:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 08:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 11:22 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 16:41 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 19:16 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 15:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 10:02 +0000
Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 09:12 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 10:35 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 19:49 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-12 11:23 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:00 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:04 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:19 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 15:34 -0400
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:44 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 13:47 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:34 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:11 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:33 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:56 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:40 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-09 14:15 -0600
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 14:04 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 22:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 00:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:46 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 21:14 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 17:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 00:14 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 15:58 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-10 10:37 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 08:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 08:51 -0600
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 09:57 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 11:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 17:02 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 12:28 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 12:12 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 18:27 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:57 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 13:11 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 14:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 14:52 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:50 -0700
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 11:16 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 12:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 12:06 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 13:07 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 14:30 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 14:46 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 21:32 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 16:44 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 23:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-11 06:33 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 20:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 10:45 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 19:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-10 10:52 +0300
Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 09:05 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 11:08 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 20:00 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-12 12:15 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:10 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:08 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:25 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 11:52 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:20 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 11:27 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 13:08 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 12:27 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:57 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:10 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 14:28 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:38 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:51 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:08 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:18 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 22:02 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 15:04 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:11 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 15:32 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 16:13 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:20 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 16:46 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:56 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 17:02 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 18:42 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 20:23 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 19:38 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 20:56 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 20:23 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:31 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-15 20:38 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:44 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 16:53 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:51 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:09 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 11:12 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 11:50 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:52 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:12 +0100
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 12:07 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:18 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-15 19:21 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:52 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-16 13:54 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:47 +0300
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic |
| Message-ID | <112ggq7$22r02$1@dont-email.me> |
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only semantic entailment specified syntactically. Validity and Soundness A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ Is corrected to mean A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically entailed by its premises. We do not use model theory to do this we use proof theoretic semantics. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-08 10:24 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112ktv6$3e1en$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646250 |
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: > P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only > semantic entailment specified syntactically. > > Validity and Soundness > A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only > if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the > premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless > to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ > > Is corrected to mean > A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only > if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically > entailed by its premises. > > We do not use model theory to do this we use proof > theoretic semantics. What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory is not used? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-08 15:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112mbq8$3tgh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646346 |
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: > >> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >> >> Validity and Soundness >> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >> >> Is corrected to mean >> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >> entailed by its premises. >> >> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >> theoretic semantics. > What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory > is not used? > P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically the language. This is the only inference steps allowed. "I drove my car to Walmart" entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed in Prolog. It took me all day to come up with that. -- 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 | 2026-07-09 10:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112nitk$7g8t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646371 |
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: > On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >> >>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>> >>> Validity and Soundness >>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>> >>> Is corrected to mean >>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>> entailed by its premises. >>> >>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>> theoretic semantics. > >> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >> is not used? > > P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic > entailment encoded in syntactically the language. > This is the only inference steps allowed. That does not answer the question. It does not specify what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference steps are allowed. > "I drove my car to Walmart" > entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. Not without additional premises that relate driving and car to consumption and energy. > It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be > encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed > in Prolog. Or C or any language that supports long character strings. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112obl1$f5v1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646382 |
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>> >>>> Validity and Soundness >>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>> >>>> Is corrected to mean >>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>> entailed by its premises. >>>> >>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>> theoretic semantics. >> >>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>> is not used? >> >> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >> This is the only inference steps allowed. > > That does not answer the question. It does not specify > what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference > steps are allowed. > It is the normal meaning of the base words. In English it means that the meaning of the words of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >> "I drove my car to Walmart" >> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. > > Not without additional premises that relate driving and car > to consumption and energy. > The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. Not additional premises additional axioms. >> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >> in Prolog. > Or C or any language that supports long character strings. > The entirely body of knowledge itself can be directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. A HOL prover could directly understand this body of knowledge. *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 -- 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 | 2026-07-09 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <_hadncRIO-N3XtL3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646400 |
On 07/09/2026 07:36 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>> >>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>> >>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>> >>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>> theoretic semantics. >>> >>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>> is not used? >>> >>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >> >> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >> steps are allowed. >> > > It is the normal meaning of the base words. > In English it means that the meaning of the words > of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. > >>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >> >> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >> to consumption and energy. >> > > The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that > certain facts are true. Not additional premises > additional axioms. > >>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>> in Prolog. >> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >> > > The entirely body of knowledge itself can be > directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > > A HOL prover could directly understand this > body of knowledge. > > *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* > the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: > individuals, properties of individuals, relations > between individuals, properties of such relations. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 > So now there's type theory, set theory, proof theory, model theory, with: narrowing and widening of types, ordinary and extra-ordinary sets, constructive and intuitionist proofs (of the inductive and deductive), standard and non-standard models (of the super-standard sort), and there's semantics and syntax and the symbolic, with: Russell's isolation/contradiction yet Prawitz' inversion/recovery, syntactical constructs yet non-syntactical constructs, words as literals yet words as relations, .... Then it's claimed that due the right column the left column's justified yet the right column doesn't exist, .... Hm, a seven-way retro-finitist crankety-troll, .... Agreeably, a model theory of all relations is a thing, for structuralist realists of the formal variety. Shut Up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 11:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112ohrj$h88t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646401 |
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > The entire body of knowledge itself can be > directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. Do you understand the details of how this is true without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Succinctness is impossible for 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <112oj0m$1054$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646402 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > The entire body of knowledge itself can be > > directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > Do you understand the details of how this is true > without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? > (a) Yes > (b) No > (c) Succinctness is impossible for me I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be so encoded. At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, and the burden of proof is on you. And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. What possible use could it be? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112ok6h$i010$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646403 |
On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > >> Do you understand the details of how this is true >> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? >> (a) Yes >> (b) No >> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me > > I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be > so encoded. That is enormously better than stream-of-consciousness that cannot seem to ever get to the point. The entire body of general knowledge expressed in language is computable when all the empirical and analytic "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the only inference step allowed is semantic entailment specified syntactically. This is closest to PTS definitional reflection: The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister > At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, > and the burden of proof is on you. > > And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. > What possible use could it be? > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <112ole9$1054$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646404 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be > >>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > >> Do you understand the details of how this is true > >> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? > >> (a) Yes > >> (b) No > >> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me > > I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be > > so encoded. [ .... ] > The entire body of general knowledge expressed in > language is computable when all the empirical and analytic > "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the > only inference step allowed is semantic entailment > specified syntactically. That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be derived since there are no further facts. "All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or some other human language). What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no defined symbols and is lacking logic. > This is closest to PTS definitional reflection: > The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics > Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister > Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches > Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister > > At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, > > and the burden of proof is on you. > > And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. > > What possible use could it be? No answer to this critical point? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 12:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112om5h$imlu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646405 |
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > >>>> Do you understand the details of how this is true >>>> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? >>>> (a) Yes >>>> (b) No >>>> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me > >>> I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be >>> so encoded. > > [ .... ] > >> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >> specified syntactically. > > That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. > Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In > your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be > derived since there are no further facts. > > "All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of > every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of > paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty > principle. > "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. > You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic > entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or > some other human language). > The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively from elements of this list. There is no element that says cats are living things. > What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no > defined symbols and is lacking logic. > >> This is closest to PTS definitional reflection: >> The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics >> Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister > >> Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches >> Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister > > >>> At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, >>> and the burden of proof is on you. > >>> And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. >>> What possible use could it be? > > No answer to this critical point? > The meaning of my words proves my point. This cannot occur until you first comprehend the meaning of my words. >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112onsn$j6uv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646406 |
On 7/9/2026 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >>>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >> >>>>> Do you understand the details of how this is true >>>>> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? >>>>> (a) Yes >>>>> (b) No >>>>> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me >> >>>> I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge >>>> cannot be >>>> so encoded. >> >> [ .... ] >> >>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>> specified syntactically. >> >> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. > > Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. > Within the formal system of general knowledge "atomic facts" take the place of axioms. >> Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In >> your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be >> derived since there are no further facts. >> >> "All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of >> every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of >> paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty >> principle. >> > > "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. > >> You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic >> entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or >> some other human language). >> > > The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely > specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that > to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked > up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively > from elements of this list. > > There is no element that says cats are living things. > >> What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no >> defined symbols and is lacking logic. >> >>> This is closest to PTS definitional reflection: >>> The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics >>> Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister >> >>> Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches >>> Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister >> >> >>>> At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, >>>> and the burden of proof is on you. >> >>>> And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. >>>> What possible use could it be? >> >> No answer to this critical point? >> > > The meaning of my words proves my point. > This cannot occur until you first comprehend > the meaning of my words. > >>> -- >>> Copyright 2026 Olcott >> > > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <112os28$2jvc$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646406 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >>>>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be > >>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > >>>> Do you understand the details of how this is true > >>>> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? > >>>> (a) Yes > >>>> (b) No > >>>> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me > >>> I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be > >>> so encoded. > > [ .... ] > >> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in > >> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic > >> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the > >> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment > >> specified syntactically. > > That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. > Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system" is incoherent and non existent. > > Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In > > your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be > > derived since there are no further facts. > > "All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of > > every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of > > paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty > > principle. > "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as complicated as in our own system. This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for all this is laughably inadequate. The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise laughable. > > You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic > > entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or > > some other human language). > The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely > specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that > to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked > up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively > from elements of this list. Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. > There is no element that says cats are living things. > > What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no > > defined symbols and is lacking logic. > >> This is closest to PTS definitional reflection: > >> The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics > >> Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister > >> Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches > >> Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister > >>> At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, > >>> and the burden of proof is on you. > >>> And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. > >>> What possible use could it be? > > No answer to this critical point? > The meaning of my words proves my point. > This cannot occur until you first comprehend > the meaning of my words. Oh, I do. Your words are just vagueness followed by vagueness, with constant avoidance of precision. That is the real reason you object to mathematical definitions, isn't it? That in using them correctly you could be tied down to precise meanings, undermining your vagueness, at which point your arguments would collapse. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112p1h7$mvvh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646409 |
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >>>>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > >>>>>> Do you understand the details of how this is true >>>>>> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? >>>>>> (a) Yes >>>>>> (b) No >>>>>> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me > >>>>> I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be >>>>> so encoded. > >>> [ .... ] > >>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>> specified syntactically. > >>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. > >> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. > > I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system" > is incoherent and non existent. > >>> Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In >>> your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be >>> derived since there are no further facts. > >>> "All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of >>> every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of >>> paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty >>> principle. > > >> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. > > Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. > > But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to > Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the > observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes > per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in > a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, > and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as > complicated as in our own system. > It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room of very high capacity SSDs. > This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for > all this is laughably inadequate. > > The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise > laughable. > >>> You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic >>> entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or >>> some other human language). > >> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >> from elements of this list. > > Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. > I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. >> There is no element that says cats are living things. > >>> What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no >>> defined symbols and is lacking logic. > >>>> This is closest to PTS definitional reflection: >>>> The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics >>>> Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister > >>>> Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches >>>> Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister > > >>>>> At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this, >>>>> and the burden of proof is on you. > >>>>> And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. >>>>> What possible use could it be? > >>> No answer to this critical point? > > >> The meaning of my words proves my point. >> This cannot occur until you first comprehend >> the meaning of my words. > > Oh, I do. Your words are just vagueness followed by vagueness, with > constant avoidance of precision. That is the real reason you object to > mathematical definitions, isn't it? That in using them correctly you > could be tied down to precise meanings, undermining your vagueness, at > which point your arguments would collapse. > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <112qg08$nro$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646416 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > >>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in > >>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic > >>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the > >>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment > >>>> specified syntactically. > >>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. > >> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. > > I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system" > > is incoherent and non existent. [ .... ] > >> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. > > Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. > > But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to > > Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the > > observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes > > per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in > > a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, > > and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as > > complicated as in our own system. > It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed > out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room > of very high capacity SSDs. It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect. More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big numbers. > > This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for > > all this is laughably inadequate. > > The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise > > laughable. No answer? [ .... ] > >> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely > >> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that > >> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked > >> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively > >> from elements of this list. > > Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. > I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. Hence the Subject: of this thread. > "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. That's meaningless garbage. There can be no "reliable computation" of "the entire body of general knowledge". Knowledge is far too subtle for that. See the long history of philosophy, mathematics, and science. You're in a great big mendacious bluff. You have nothing. [ .... ] > >> The meaning of my words proves my point. > >> This cannot occur until you first comprehend > >> the meaning of my words. > > Oh, I do. Your words are just vagueness followed by vagueness, with > > constant avoidance of precision. That is the real reason you object to > > mathematical definitions, isn't it? That in using them correctly you > > could be tied down to precise meanings, undermining your vagueness, at > > which point your arguments would collapse. No answer to this point? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 09:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112quke$19gqm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646436 |
On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>>>> specified syntactically. > >>>>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point. > >>>> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. > >>> I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system" >>> is incoherent and non existent. > > [ .... ] > >>>> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. > >>> Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. > >>> But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to >>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the >>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes >>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in >>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, >>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>> complicated as in our own system. > >> It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed >> out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room >> of very high capacity SSDs. > > It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect. > More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big > numbers. > >>> This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for >>> all this is laughably inadequate. > >>> The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>> laughable. > > No answer? > > [ .... ] > >>>> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >>>> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >>>> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >>>> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >>>> from elements of this list. > >>> Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. > >> I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. > > Hence the Subject: of this thread. > I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning. Calling this a mere correction was way too limited. My system is exactly and precisely the set of interconnected semantic meanings. It is nothing more than that. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 10:35 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112sro8$1rcun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646442 |
On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>>>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>>>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>>>>> specified syntactically. >> >>>>>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>> point. >> >>>>> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. >> >>>> I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>> "system" >>>> is incoherent and non existent. >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. >> >>>> Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. >> >>>> But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to >>>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the >>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 >>>> bytes >>>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>> stars in >>>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, >>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>> complicated as in our own system. >> >>> It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed >>> out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room >>> of very high capacity SSDs. >> >> It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect. >> More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big >> numbers. >> >>>> This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 >>>> petabytes for >>>> all this is laughably inadequate. >> >>>> The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>>> laughable. >> >> No answer? >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >>>>> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >>>>> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >>>>> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >>>>> from elements of this list. >> >>>> Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. >> >>> I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. >> >> Hence the Subject: of this thread. >> > I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic > with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning. That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to call it (or anything) "incoherent mess". -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-11 19:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112uobe$2f1qu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646488 |
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>>>>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>>>>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>>>>>> specified syntactically. >>> >>>>>>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>>> point. >>> >>>>>> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. >>> >>>>> I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>> "system" >>>>> is incoherent and non existent. >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. >>> >>>>> Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. >>> >>>>> But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. >>>>> According to >>>>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the >>>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>> 200 bytes >>>>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>> stars in >>>>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, >>>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>>> complicated as in our own system. >>> >>>> It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed >>>> out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room >>>> of very high capacity SSDs. >>> >>> It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect. >>> More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big >>> numbers. >>> >>>>> This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 >>>>> petabytes for >>>>> all this is laughably inadequate. >>> >>>>> The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>>>> laughable. >>> >>> No answer? >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >>>>>> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >>>>>> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >>>>>> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >>>>>> from elements of this list. >>> >>>>> Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. >>> >>>> I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. >>> >>> Hence the Subject: of this thread. >>> >> I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic >> with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning. > > That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to > call it (or anything) "incoherent mess". > Many experts have created whole system of logic to bypass major issues. No one here sees any of these issues because they just take everything that they learned by rote as the gospel. Its like a MAGA and election fraud. Making truth computable Connecting all the facts of general knowledge together including all the relations between these facts <is> the body of general knowledge. When such a system exists truth is computable by merely looking up an expression to see if it is in this body. This seems simplistic yet the additional details are overwhelming to people here. Philosophy of logic takes an entirely different kind of mind than logic. It also has very important terms that seem like irrelevant gibberish to pure logicians. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 11:23 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112viu8$2m2ii$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646495 |
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: > On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>>>>>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>>>>>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>>>>>>> specified syntactically. >>>> >>>>>>>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>>>> point. >>>> >>>>>>> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. >>>> >>>>>> I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>>> "system" >>>>>> is incoherent and non existent. >>>> >>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. >>>> >>>>>> Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. >>>> >>>>>> But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. >>>>>> According to >>>>>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in >>>>>> the >>>>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>>> 200 bytes >>>>>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>>> stars in >>>>>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have >>>>>> planets, >>>>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>>>> complicated as in our own system. >>>> >>>>> It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed >>>>> out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room >>>>> of very high capacity SSDs. >>>> >>>> It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect. >>>> More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless >>>> big >>>> numbers. >>>> >>>>>> This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 >>>>>> petabytes for >>>>>> all this is laughably inadequate. >>>> >>>>>> The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>>>>> laughable. >>>> >>>> No answer? >>>> >>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >>>>>>> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >>>>>>> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >>>>>>> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >>>>>>> from elements of this list. >>>> >>>>>> Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. >>>> >>>>> I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. >>>> >>>> Hence the Subject: of this thread. >>>> >>> I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic >>> with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning. >> >> That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to >> call it (or anything) "incoherent mess". > > Many experts have created whole system of logic to > bypass major issues. Usually it is sufficient to focus on some usual form of the first order logic. Simpler systems are less powerful and stronger systems are not as well understood. Some systems are just syntactic sugar on the ordinary first order logic. Sometimes it is useful to use second or higher order logic. But there is no known complete set of valid inference rules like there is for the first order logic. > No one here sees any of these > issues because they just take everything that they > learned by rote as the gospel. They don't see the pot filled with gold at the end of rainbow, either. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 11:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1130dng$2ulb5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646502 |
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>>>>>>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>>>>>>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>>>>>>>> specified syntactically. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. >>>>> >>>>>>> I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>>>> "system" >>>>>>> is incoherent and non existent. >>>>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. >>>>> >>>>>>> Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. >>>>> >>>>>>> But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. >>>>>>> According to >>>>>>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>>>> 200 bytes >>>>>>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>>>> stars in >>>>>>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have >>>>>>> planets, >>>>>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>>>>> complicated as in our own system. >>>>> >>>>>> It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed >>>>>> out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room >>>>>> of very high capacity SSDs. >>>>> >>>>> It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and >>>>> intellect. >>>>> More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily >>>>> meaningless big >>>>> numbers. >>>>> >>>>>>> This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 >>>>>>> petabytes for >>>>>>> all this is laughably inadequate. >>>>> >>>>>>> The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>>>>>> laughable. >>>>> >>>>> No answer? >>>>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >>>>>>>> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >>>>>>>> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >>>>>>>> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >>>>>>>> from elements of this list. >>>>> >>>>>>> Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. >>>>> >>>>>> I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. >>>>> >>>>> Hence the Subject: of this thread. >>>>> >>>> I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic >>>> with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning. >>> >>> That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to >>> call it (or anything) "incoherent mess". >> >> Many experts have created whole system of logic to >> bypass major issues. > > Usually it is sufficient to focus on some usual form of the first > order logic. Simpler systems are less powerful and stronger systems > are not as well understood. Some systems are just syntactic sugar > on the ordinary first order logic. > > Sometimes it is useful to use second or higher order logic. But there > is no known complete set of valid inference rules like there is for > the first order logic. > >> No one here sees any of these >> issues because they just take everything that they >> learned by rote as the gospel. > > They don't see the pot filled with gold at the end of rainbow, either. > I have always plugged actual English sentences into propositional variables to see if the inference still makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the principle of explosion does not make sense. Hypothesize a formal system that can infallibly determine the truth of any expression of language pertaining to general knowledge. Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that could have possibly changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? The above can be accomplished manually by humans. It takes a lot of Google searches and most importantly one must have a good understanding of what actual evidence is. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web