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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <112p2up$2jvc$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646418 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > >> On 2026-07-09 08:36, 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. > >> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what > >> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are > >> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning > >> as the 'base meaning'. > >>> In English it means that the meaning of the words > >>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. > >> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling > >> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as > >> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. > >> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of > >> a model and you haven't answered this. > >> André > >>>>> "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 > > The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" > > fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in > > accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". > > I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" > > is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. > > This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic > > that very common-sensical > I only care about getting it correctly not all of the > many different ways to get it incorrectly. You don't. You care only about your inane vainglorious boasting. You are very careful not to say exactly what you mean by things like "semantic entailment" because you don't know. It's some phrase you picked up from some learned text, but, lacking the needed background, you're clueless as to its meaning. > P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic > entailment encoded in syntactically the language. > This is the only inference steps allowed. Pure meaningless word salad, as well as having grammatical mistakes. > That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of > the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. It's pure bullshit. > > and as well with Chrysippus' > > moods: "very classical logic". > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112p5pf$od0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646422 |
On 7/9/2026 4:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > >> I only care about getting it correctly not all of the >> many different ways to get it incorrectly. > > You don't. You care only about your inane vainglorious boasting. > > You are very careful not to say exactly what you mean by things like > "semantic entailment" I also don't carefully explain exactly what I mean by bovine cow. Anyone with any four year degree can find out in less than five minutes. What is the exact compositional meaning of the term "semantic entailment"? The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic (relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical consequence). In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment is a relationship between statements where the truth of one statement guarantees the truth of another based strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are syntactically constructed. -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 00:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112pv3v$1008r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646414 |
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-09 08:36, 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. >> >> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are >> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning >> as the 'base meaning'. >> >>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >> >> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >> >> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of >> a model and you haven't answered this. >> >> André >> >>>>> "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 >>> >> > > The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" > fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in > accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". > That seems to be coherent prose. I don't care to find the meaning of all of those terms because they are merely things that do not work. My whole system is a semantic tautology: interconnected meanings in an acyclic graph. > I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" > is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. > > This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic > that very common-sensical and as well with Chrysippus' > moods: "very classical logic". > > > > -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112p22g$n70f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646413 |
On 7/9/2026 3:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-09 08:36, 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.
>
> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are
> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning
> as the 'base meaning'.
>
>> In English it means that the meaning of the words
>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
>
> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling
> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
The full meaning of {feline cat} entails that
cats are animals, mammals, living things et cetera.
No circle it has always been an acyclic directed
graph.
>
> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
> a model and you haven't answered this.
>
> André
>
Maybe Mikko never understood the base meaning
of "semantic" that proves "cats are animals"
and many other thing.
>>>> "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 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 | 2026-07-10 10:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <112q7ff$1279f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646417 |
On 09/07/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2026 3:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, 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.
>>
>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which
>> are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
>> meaning as the 'base meaning'.
>>
>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words
>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
>>
>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
>> falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything
>> as 'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
>
> The full meaning of {feline cat} entails that
> cats are animals, mammals, living things et cetera.
> No circle it has always been an acyclic directed
> graph.
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 08:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112qsh8$18pum$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646434 |
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 09/07/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/9/2026 3:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, 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.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which
>>> are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
>>> meaning as the 'base meaning'.
>>>
>>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words
>>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
>>>
>>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
>>> falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything
>>> as 'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
>>
>> The full meaning of {feline cat} entails that
>> cats are animals, mammals, living things et cetera.
>> No circle it has always been an acyclic directed
>> graph.
>
> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces
> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
>
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
--
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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 08:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112r0tn$1aad1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646439 |
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >> > > All those relations are translated into placements in an > acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. > > The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge > and the semantic relations between these facts specified > syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the scope of the model itself. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 10:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112r2b0$1aus5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646444 |
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>> >> >> All those relations are translated into placements in an >> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >> >> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. > > What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model > corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the > scope of the model itself. > > André > Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully integrated into the formal system and its formal language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion cannot possibly work. When we only have a system of interconnected semantic meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is inherently impossible. P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q My system requires that the meaning of the words of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings are unrelated thus there is no proof. -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 09:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112r4pq$1b8g4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646446 |
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>> >>> >>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>> >>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >> >> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model >> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the >> scope of the model itself. >> >> André >> > > Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully > integrated into the formal system and its formal > language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion > cannot possibly work. You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even mention the POE. My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. > When we only have a system of interconnected semantic > meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is > inherently impossible. No idea what that's supposed to mean. > P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" > Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" > The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q > > My system requires that the meaning of the words > of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings > are unrelated thus there is no proof. On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically entail Q in this example. You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by 'semantically entails' (other than by claiming it relates to some unspecified 'base meaning'), so I am not in a position to evaluate this claim. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 11:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112r5g0$1c5qq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646447 |
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>> If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>> >>>> >>>> All those relations are translated into placements in an >>>> acyclic directed graph type hierarchy. >>>> >>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. >>> >>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model >>> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the >>> scope of the model itself. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >> integrated into the formal system and its formal >> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >> cannot possibly work. > > You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even > mention the POE. A concrete example of the new total to the thread Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning > My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' > are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to > reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical > questions. > It is not merely a model of model theory when it is fully integrated into the formal system and thus not a separate thing outside of the formal system. >> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >> inherently impossible. > > No idea what that's supposed to mean. > It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what each word means then you can't get it. >> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >> >> My system requires that the meaning of the words >> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >> are unrelated thus there is no proof. > > On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically > entail Q in this example. What details about the composition of the Moon are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? > You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by > 'semantically entails' I only ever mean what the actual words actually mean. Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the English word from a dictionary. This is often the first listing. semantic adjective of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail verb to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail Frege's Principle of compositionality the principle that the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules used to combine them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality What is the exact compositional meaning of the term "semantic entailment"? The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic (relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical consequence). In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment is a relationship between statements where the truth of one statement guarantees the truth of another based strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are syntactically constructed. > (other than by claiming it relates to some > unspecified 'base meaning'), so I am not in a position to evaluate this > claim. > > André > -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 17:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112r8iq$vk2$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646448 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > > On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: > >> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > >>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: [ .... ] > >>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge > >>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified > >>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. > >>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model > >>> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the > >>> scope of the model itself. > >>> André > >> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully > >> integrated into the formal system and its formal > >> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion > >> cannot possibly work. > > You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even > > mention the POE. > A concrete example of the new total to the thread > Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Symbolic logic is correct reasoning. I think what you mean is you're replacing, in your own private world, symbolic logic with incorrect reasoning. > > My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' > > are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to > > reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical > > questions. > It is not merely a model of model theory when it is > fully integrated into the formal system and thus not > a separate thing outside of the formal system. > >> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic > >> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is > >> inherently impossible. > > No idea what that's supposed to mean. > It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. > It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what > each word means then you can't get it. It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. > >> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" > >> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" > >> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q > >> My system requires that the meaning of the words > >> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings > >> are unrelated thus there is no proof. > > On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically > > entail Q in this example. > What details about the composition of the Moon > are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? None, but that doesn't matter. What's important is the inevitable proof of the principle of explosion from a contradiction. If that doesn't happen in your so-called "correct reasoning", that that system is wrong. > > You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by > > 'semantically entails' > I only ever mean what the actual words actually mean. No. You've put a lot of effort into keeping "semantically entails" as confused and meaningless as possible. What I think you mean is "logically follows from". That's not a new idea by any means. > Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the > English word from a dictionary. This is often the first > listing. The meaning that matters is that agreed upon and used by expert practitioners in the field. What you call the "base meanings" are too vague and contradictory in many cases. [ .... ] > What is the exact compositional meaning of the term > "semantic entailment"? > The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment > comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic > (relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical > consequence). > In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment > is a relationship between statements where the truth > of one statement guarantees the truth of another based > strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are > syntactically constructed. That's how mathematical logic works. But you can probably leave off ", regardless of how they are syntactically constructed", since that adds nothing to the meaning, it just pads it out. > > (other than by claiming it relates to some > > unspecified 'base meaning'), so I am not in a position to evaluate this > > claim. > > André > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 12:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112ra3t$1dqo7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646449 |
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>>> The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge >>>>>> and the semantic relations between these facts specified >>>>>> syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature. > >>>>> What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model >>>>> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the >>>>> scope of the model itself. > >>>>> André > > >>>> Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully >>>> integrated into the formal system and its formal >>>> language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion >>>> cannot possibly work. > >>> You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even >>> mention the POE. > >> A concrete example of the new total to the thread >> Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning > > Symbolic logic is correct reasoning. I think what you mean is you're > replacing, in your own private world, symbolic logic with incorrect > reasoning. > >>> My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' >>> are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to >>> reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical >>> questions. > > >> It is not merely a model of model theory when it is >> fully integrated into the formal system and thus not >> a separate thing outside of the formal system. > >>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>> inherently impossible. > >>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. > > >> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >> each word means then you can't get it. > > It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct > English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages > (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of > interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. > "system of interconnected semantic meanings" Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than a sentence will be hard to understand. >>>> P = "The Moon is made from green cheese" >>>> Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" >>>> The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q > >>>> My system requires that the meaning of the words >>>> of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings >>>> are unrelated thus there is no proof. > >>> On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically >>> entail Q in this example. > >> What details about the composition of the Moon >> are semantically relevant to anything about Trump? > > None, but that doesn't matter. When the ONLY inference step is semantic entailment then the principle of explosion becomes impossible. > What's important is the inevitable proof > of the principle of explosion from a contradiction. If that doesn't > happen in your so-called "correct reasoning", that that system is wrong. > >>> You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by >>> 'semantically entails' > >> I only ever mean what the actual words actually mean. > > No. You've put a lot of effort into keeping "semantically entails" as > confused and meaningless as possible. What I think you mean is > "logically follows from". That's not a new idea by any means. > >> Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the >> English word from a dictionary. This is often the first >> listing. > > The meaning that matters is that agreed upon and used by expert > practitioners in the field. There are no experts in the field of a dictionary definition of a word, there is only the dictionary definition. semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. meaning in language that causes a necessary consequence -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 12:12 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rcm6$1daqo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646451 |
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>> inherently impossible. >> >>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >> >> >>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>> each word means then you can't get it. >> >> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct >> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages >> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. >> > > "system of interconnected semantic meanings" > Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than > a sentence will be hard to understand. He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter words, but words that are actually well-defined. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 18:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rdj9$vk2$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646457 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: > > On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > >>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: > >>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic > >>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is > >>>>> inherently impossible. > >>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. > >>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. > >>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what > >>> each word means then you can't get it. > >> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct > >> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages > >> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of > >> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. > > "system of interconnected semantic meanings" > > Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than > > a sentence will be hard to understand. > He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, > he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter > words, but words that are actually well-defined. Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to write clearly and forcefully. > André -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 13:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rfac$1fin3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646458 |
On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>>> inherently impossible. > >>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. > > >>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>>> each word means then you can't get it. > >>>> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct >>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages >>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. > > >>> "system of interconnected semantic meanings" >>> Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than >>> a sentence will be hard to understand. > >> He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, >> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter >> words, but words that are actually well-defined. > > Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the > listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to write > clearly and forcefully. > >> André > On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is not a high school graduate and difficult for high school graduates. It would be the same for college grads that never heard of the term. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 13:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rg48$1fi9d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646461 |
On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>>>> inherently impossible. >> >>>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >> >> >>>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>>>> each word means then you can't get it. >> >>>>> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct >>>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages >>>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. >> >> >>>> "system of interconnected semantic meanings" >>>> Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than >>>> a sentence will be hard to understand. >> >>> He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, >>> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter >>> words, but words that are actually well-defined. >> >> Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the >> listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to write >> clearly and forcefully. >> >>> André >> > > On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum > up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by > itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is > not a high school graduate and difficult for high > school graduates. It would be the same for college > grads that never heard of the term. In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was 'of or relating to meaning in language'. So how does 'semantic meaning' differ from ordinary 'meaning'. Presumably this word serves a purpose or you wouldn't have included it, but without more precise definitions no one is going to be able to figure out what that purpose is. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 14:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rheu$1g8rb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646463 |
On 7/10/2026 2:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote: >> On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>>>>> inherently impossible. >>> >>>>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>> >>> >>>>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>>>>> each word means then you can't get it. >>> >>>>>> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should >>>>>> construct >>>>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other >>>>>> languages >>>>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. >>> >>> >>>>> "system of interconnected semantic meanings" >>>>> Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than >>>>> a sentence will be hard to understand. >>> >>>> He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, >>>> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter >>>> words, but words that are actually well-defined. >>> >>> Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the >>> listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to >>> write >>> clearly and forcefully. >>> >>>> André >>> >> >> On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum >> up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by >> itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is >> not a high school graduate and difficult for high >> school graduates. It would be the same for college >> grads that never heard of the term. > > In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was 'of > or relating to meaning in language'. That is what I mean. The same term also has an enormous pile of specialized meanings. Most people bounce around all of those and never get to the simple essence. > So how does 'semantic meaning' > differ from ordinary 'meaning'. Presumably this word serves a purpose or > you wouldn't have included it, but without more precise definitions no > one is going to be able to figure out what that purpose is. > > André > -- 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 14:52 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rm1o$1fi9d$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646465 |
On 2026-07-10 13:33, olcott wrote: > On 7/10/2026 2:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic >>>>>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is >>>>>>>>>> inherently impossible. >>>> >>>>>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system. >>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what >>>>>>>> each word means then you can't get it. >>>> >>>>>>> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should >>>>>>> construct >>>>>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other >>>>>>> languages >>>>>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> "system of interconnected semantic meanings" >>>>>> Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than >>>>>> a sentence will be hard to understand. >>>> >>>>> He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, >>>>> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter >>>>> words, but words that are actually well-defined. >>>> >>>> Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate >>>> the >>>> listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to >>>> write >>>> clearly and forcefully. >>>> >>>>> André >>>> >>> >>> On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum >>> up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by >>> itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is >>> not a high school graduate and difficult for high >>> school graduates. It would be the same for college >>> grads that never heard of the term. >> >> In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was >> 'of or relating to meaning in language'. > > That is what I mean. The same term also has an enormous pile > of specialized meanings. Most people bounce around all of > those and never get to the simple essence. There is no 'simple essence'. The word can refer to any of those specialized meanings, meaning it doesn't have one single 'basic' definition, contrary to what you believe. >> So how does 'semantic meaning' differ from ordinary 'meaning'. >> Presumably this word serves a purpose or you wouldn't have included >> it, but without more precise definitions no one is going to be able to >> figure out what that purpose is. No answer? You clearly intend 'semantic' to narrow down what 'meaning' refers to, but the definition 'of or relating to meaning in language' certainly doesn't do that. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 16:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112rngn$1ia5p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646468 |
On 7/10/2026 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2026-07-10 13:33, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/10/2026 2:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
>>>>>>>>>>> meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
>>>>>>>>>>> inherently impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No idea what that's supposed to mean.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
>>>>>>>>> It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
>>>>>>>>> each word means then you can't get it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should
>>>>>>>> construct
>>>>>>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other
>>>>>>>> languages
>>>>>>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like
>>>>>>>> "system of
>>>>>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "system of interconnected semantic meanings"
>>>>>>> Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
>>>>>>> a sentence will be hard to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>> He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything,
>>>>>> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter
>>>>>> words, but words that are actually well-defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and
>>>>> concentrate the
>>>>> listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to
>>>>> write
>>>>> clearly and forcefully.
>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum
>>>> up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by
>>>> itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is
>>>> not a high school graduate and difficult for high
>>>> school graduates. It would be the same for college
>>>> grads that never heard of the term.
>>>
>>> In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was
>>> 'of or relating to meaning in language'.
>>
>> That is what I mean. The same term also has an enormous pile
>> of specialized meanings. Most people bounce around all of
>> those and never get to the simple essence.
>
> There is no 'simple essence'. The word can refer to any of those
> specialized meanings,
I am stipulating that those are excluded.
In simpler words those meanings don't fucking
count within the context of the ideas that
I am presenting.
> meaning it doesn't have one single 'basic'
> definition, contrary to what you believe.
>
I am referring to the most basic meaning. This is
a clear yet not 100% perfectly razor sharp dividing
line. If I said "line-of-demarcation" would you understand
that?
>>> So how does 'semantic meaning' differ from ordinary 'meaning'.
>>> Presumably this word serves a purpose or you wouldn't have included
>>> it, but without more precise definitions no one is going to be able
>>> to figure out what that purpose is.
>
> No answer? You clearly intend 'semantic' to narrow down what 'meaning'
Yes your girlfriend could frown at you at that
would mean something. I don't have the time or
patience to discuss everything that I am not
discussing. When I say {semantic meaning} and
you think I might mean something else then you
are wrong.
> refers to, but the definition 'of or relating to meaning in language'
> certainly doesn't do that.
>
> André
>
--
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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 16:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <112s0fc$1kquj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646468 |
On 7/10/2026 1:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: [...] Olcott is kind of akin to an old douche bag? They are all clean right? ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web