Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #646505 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-12 09:15 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-07-16 11:45 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 09:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-12 14:30 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:13 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-12 16:48 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:38 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 12:19 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:25 -0500
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-15 11:01 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 12:24 -0500
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-15 13:32 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:34 -0500
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-15 18:10 -0600
Re: Olcott's system Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-17 12:48 +0100
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:18 +0300
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:13 +0300
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:28 -0400
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:05 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 10:31 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-13 16:22 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:37 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 15:48 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 18:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-14 12:07 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:38 -0700
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:29 -0700
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 19:38 -0500
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 19:03 -0700
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 21:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 13:03 -0700
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 20:18 -0700
Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:42 +0300
Theatheory (not Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes)) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-16 14:00 -0700
Re: Theatheory (not Re: Olcott's system (not Hobbes)) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-16 15:28 -0700
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 23:43 -0500
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 16:03 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 18:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 11:51 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 10:41 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 10:34 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 12:34 +0300
Re: Olcott's system Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-17 20:10 +0100
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 12:19 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 10:43 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 10:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:45 +0300
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:30 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:26 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:06 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 10:49 +0300
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 10:38 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:51 -0500
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 11:29 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 13:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 12:49 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 13:57 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:02 -0400
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:04 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 14:29 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:31 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 14:46 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:51 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:06 -0400
Re: Olcott's system "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 13:34 -0700
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 14:15 -0600
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 11:08 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-13 16:43 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-13 17:14 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 12:20 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-13 20:24 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 17:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-14 12:48 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:41 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-14 19:39 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-14 20:12 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-14 20:48 +0000
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:04 -0500
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:22 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:11 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 10:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's system "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:59 -0700
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 11:10 +0300
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:59 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:19 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:16 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 10:54 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 11:13 +0300
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 15:36 -0400
Re: Olcott's system "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 13:45 -0700
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:57 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:16 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:24 +0300
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:00 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 11:25 +0300
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 13:50 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 11:31 +0300
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 13:25 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:04 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:27 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:56 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 17:03 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:21 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 17:27 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:40 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 17:57 -0400
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 17:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's system dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 18:28 -0400
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 15:38 -0600
Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 16:44 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 15:56 -0600
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 17:10 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 16:31 -0600
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 18:33 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 18:32 -0600
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 19:53 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 21:00 -0400
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 20:18 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 21:19 -0400
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 20:23 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 21:26 -0400
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 20:28 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 08:49 -0600
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 10:34 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 10:47 -0600
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 12:00 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 11:49 -0600
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 12:55 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 12:27 +0300
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:52 -0500
Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 13:56 -0700
Re: Olcott's system André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-12 14:34 -0600
Re: Olcott's system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's system "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 13:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's system Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:30 +0300
Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:07 -0500
Re: Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 12:19 -0500
Re: Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-15 17:54 +0000
Re: Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 13:05 -0500
Re: Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-18 11:32 +0100
Re: Terribly evil lies that kill all life on Earth Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 11:45 +0300
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11310ro$32s2u$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646548 |
On 7/12/2026 5:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the one >>>>>>>>>>>> used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that >>>>>>>>>>>> you have very different definitions of many things which is >>>>>>>>>>>> why people keep pressing you for your definition of these >>>>>>>>>>>> terms. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of >>>>>>>> any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically >>>>>>>>>> impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to >>>>>>>>>> be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And >>>>>>>>>> where empirical claims are concerned there is the additional >>>>>>>>>> problem that while logic can establish the validity of an >>>>>>>>>> argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of >>>>>>>>>> empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>> world" to offer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal* >>>>>>>> definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem >>>>>>>> really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what >>>>>>>> can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about >>>>>>>> legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal >>>>>>>> notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings >>>>>>>> to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do >>>>>>>> not actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal >>>>>>>> definition of proof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the >>>>>>>> Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election >>>>>>>> irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim >>>>>>>> is simply that this has not actually been *proven*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims >>>>>>>> have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>> >>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>> That's not evidence. >>> >>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>> even evidence of other things. >> >> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >> >>> >>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>> exactly what it is not evidence is >> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >> > Around and around until Defeated >> > > That no one can possibly provide any evidence What is the evidence of that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 16:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11311ka$3541o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646550 |
On 7/12/2026 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/12/2026 5:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the >>>>>>>>>>>>> one used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have very different definitions of many things >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why people keep pressing you for your definition >>>>>>>>>>>>> of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of >>>>>>>>> any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically >>>>>>>>>>> impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to >>>>>>>>>>> be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And >>>>>>>>>>> where empirical claims are concerned there is the additional >>>>>>>>>>> problem that while logic can establish the validity of an >>>>>>>>>>> argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of >>>>>>>>>>> empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>> world" to offer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal* >>>>>>>>> definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem >>>>>>>>> really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what >>>>>>>>> can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about >>>>>>>>> legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal >>>>>>>>> notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your >>>>>>>>> claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof on >>>>>>>>> the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the >>>>>>>>> Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election >>>>>>>>> irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim >>>>>>>>> is simply that this has not actually been *proven*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>> That's not evidence. >>>> >>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>> even evidence of other things. >>> >>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>> >>>> >>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>> > Around and around until Defeated >>> >> >> That no one can possibly provide any evidence > > What is the evidence of that? > You already know. You game is infinitely deceptive. If you are not focused on always being stuck in rebuttal mode then you provide an acceptable basis. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 17:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11312jj$32s2u$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646552 |
On 7/12/2026 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 5:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have very different definitions of many things >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why people keep pressing you for your definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware >>>>>>>>>> of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to >>>>>>>>>>>> be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. >>>>>>>>>>>> And where empirical claims are concerned there is the >>>>>>>>>>>> additional problem that while logic can establish the >>>>>>>>>>>> validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually establish >>>>>>>>>>>> the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal* >>>>>>>>>> definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem >>>>>>>>>> really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what >>>>>>>>>> can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about >>>>>>>>>> legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal >>>>>>>>>> notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your >>>>>>>>>> claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof on >>>>>>>>>> the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>> >>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>> >>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>> >>> >>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence >> >> What is the evidence of that? >> > > You already know. So just like Trump said: "Look around". That's not evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 17:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11313lc$35lp0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646555 |
On 7/12/2026 4:57 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/12/2026 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 5:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point: You have a *very* different definition of proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one used by logicians. It's usually clear from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your posts that you have very different definitions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many things which is why people keep pressing you for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware >>>>>>>>>>> of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> logically impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>> resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>>>>>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the >>>>>>>>>>> *legal* definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you >>>>>>>>>>> seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits >>>>>>>>>>> on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims >>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're concerned >>>>>>>>>>> about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered >>>>>>>>>>> by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But to claim that they were therefore proven wrong would >>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be false. And we now do have evidence that they were >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your >>>>>>>>>>> claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof >>>>>>>>>>> on the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>>> >>>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>>> >>>> >>>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence >>> >>> What is the evidence of that? >>> >> >> You already know. > So just like Trump said: "Look around". > > That's not evidence. > proof of proof is finding it. proof of no proof means doing a very good search everywhere and all the people that claimed there is proof infinitely dodge when pinned down. "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" Is the base meaning of proof that I have always meant when I have ever used the term "proof" for 28 years. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 18:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11314eo$35c5v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646557 |
On 7/12/2026 6:15 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 4:57 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 5:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he thinks that he will be able to prove that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince anyone about the correctness of one 'basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact', how many peta- years do you think he needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point: You have a *very* different definition of proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one used by logicians. It's usually clear from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your posts that you have very different definitions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many things which is why people keep pressing you for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware >>>>>>>>>>>> of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>>> entire world". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the >>>>>>>>>>>> *legal* definition of proof, which is very different from >>>>>>>>>>>> the *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you >>>>>>>>>>>> seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits >>>>>>>>>>>> on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims >>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're concerned >>>>>>>>>>>> about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>> by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But to claim that they were therefore proven wrong would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be false. And we now do have evidence that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously have a very idiosyncratic definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that >>>>>>>>>>>> your claims do not actually constitute anything resembling >>>>>>>>>>>> proof on the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence >>>> >>>> What is the evidence of that? >>>> >>> >>> You already know. >> So just like Trump said: "Look around". >> >> That's not evidence. >> > > proof of proof is finding it. > proof of no proof means doing a very good > search everywhere Nope. It means either conclusively checking *all* possible places or showing conclusively that fraud in fact did not exist, implying there can be no proof that it did. > and all the people that > claimed there is proof infinitely dodge when > pinned down. Which is what you're doing right now when being pressed for evidence. > > "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" > Is the base meaning of proof that I have always meant > when I have ever used the term "proof" for 28 years. > Which is not the stipulated definition of "proof" as used in math and logic, which is the subject of these newsgroups, and therefore irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 15:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <11311ge$302k5$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646548 |
On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the one >>>>>>>>>>>> used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that >>>>>>>>>>>> you have very different definitions of many things which is >>>>>>>>>>>> why people keep pressing you for your definition of these >>>>>>>>>>>> terms. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of >>>>>>>> any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically >>>>>>>>>> impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to >>>>>>>>>> be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And >>>>>>>>>> where empirical claims are concerned there is the additional >>>>>>>>>> problem that while logic can establish the validity of an >>>>>>>>>> argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of >>>>>>>>>> empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>> world" to offer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal* >>>>>>>> definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem >>>>>>>> really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what >>>>>>>> can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about >>>>>>>> legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal >>>>>>>> notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings >>>>>>>> to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do >>>>>>>> not actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal >>>>>>>> definition of proof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the >>>>>>>> Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election >>>>>>>> irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim >>>>>>>> is simply that this has not actually been *proven*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims >>>>>>>> have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>> >>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>> That's not evidence. >>> >>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>> even evidence of other things. >> >> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >> >>> >>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>> exactly what it is not evidence is >> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >> > Around and around until Defeated >> > > That no one can possibly provide any evidence is > sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. The fact that no one has provided any evidence does not imply that no one can *possibly* provide any evidence. That's just an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. You still don't grasp what a formal proof is. A proof is an argument in which it is not logically possible for the premises to be true yet the conclusion false. In other words, assuming true premises but a false conclusion would lead to a *logical* contradiction. If you want to claim to have found "proof", you should first of all actually state your premises and your conclusion, and then show how assuming the premises are true but the conclusion false leads to a logical contradiction. What contradiction is involved? André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 16:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <11311rt$355q4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646551 |
On 7/12/2026 4:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the >>>>>>>>>>>>> one used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have very different definitions of many things >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why people keep pressing you for your definition >>>>>>>>>>>>> of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of >>>>>>>>> any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically >>>>>>>>>>> impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to >>>>>>>>>>> be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And >>>>>>>>>>> where empirical claims are concerned there is the additional >>>>>>>>>>> problem that while logic can establish the validity of an >>>>>>>>>>> argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of >>>>>>>>>>> empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>> world" to offer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal* >>>>>>>>> definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem >>>>>>>>> really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what >>>>>>>>> can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about >>>>>>>>> legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal >>>>>>>>> notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your >>>>>>>>> claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof on >>>>>>>>> the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the >>>>>>>>> Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election >>>>>>>>> irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim >>>>>>>>> is simply that this has not actually been *proven*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>> That's not evidence. >>>> >>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>> even evidence of other things. >>> >>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>> >>>> >>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>> > Around and around until Defeated >>> >> >> That no one can possibly provide any evidence is >> sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. > > The fact that no one has provided any evidence When sufficiently motivated to do so sufficiently shows that no such evidence exists. Are you totally clueless about inductive inference? > does not imply that no > one can *possibly* provide any evidence. That's just an unsubstantiated > assertion on your part. > -- 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 | 2026-07-12 15:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <11312ii$302k5$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646553 |
On 2026-07-12 15:44, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 4:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have very different definitions of many things >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why people keep pressing you for your definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware >>>>>>>>>> of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to >>>>>>>>>>>> be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. >>>>>>>>>>>> And where empirical claims are concerned there is the >>>>>>>>>>>> additional problem that while logic can establish the >>>>>>>>>>>> validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually establish >>>>>>>>>>>> the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal* >>>>>>>>>> definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem >>>>>>>>>> really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what >>>>>>>>>> can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about >>>>>>>>>> legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal >>>>>>>>>> notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your >>>>>>>>>> claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof on >>>>>>>>>> the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>> >>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>> >>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>> >>> >>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence is >>> sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. >> >> The fact that no one has provided any evidence > > When sufficiently motivated to do so sufficiently > shows that no such evidence exists. Are you totally > clueless about inductive inference? For starters, inductive inference has absolutely nothing to do with formal proof. I really don't think you really grasp what *proof* means. And what do you mean by 'sufficiently motivated'? It is logically possible that there is someone out there who has the evidence but has chosen not to come forward with it. Perhaps they were happy with the election results and don't want them questioned; perhaps they are using the evidence to blackmail those responsible, or perhaps they simply have no interest in coming forward with the evidence -- none of these possibilities raises any sort of logical contradiction which is what you would need if you actually wanted to claim to have some sort of proof. Just because people who were motivated to come up with evidence didn't find any does *not* mean no such evidence exists. Proofs of the nonexistence of anything are notoriously difficult. Emprical evidence (i.e. inductive inference) is inherently probabalistic. Formal proofs are absolute. You can certainly claim that the existence of election fraud is massively improbable, but you can't actually prove this in a formal sense. If you're not interested in formal proofs you should be frequenting different newsgroups. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 17:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <11313c7$35jea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646554 |
On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-12 15:44, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point: You have a *very* different definition of proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one used by logicians. It's usually clear from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your posts that you have very different definitions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many things which is why people keep pressing you for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware >>>>>>>>>>> of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>>>>>> world". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> logically impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>> resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>>>>>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the >>>>>>>>>>> *legal* definition of proof, which is very different from the >>>>>>>>>>> *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you >>>>>>>>>>> seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits >>>>>>>>>>> on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims >>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're concerned >>>>>>>>>>> about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered >>>>>>>>>>> by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But to claim that they were therefore proven wrong would >>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be false. And we now do have evidence that they were >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your >>>>>>>>>>> claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof >>>>>>>>>>> on the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>>> >>>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>>> >>>> >>>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence is >>>> sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. >>> >>> The fact that no one has provided any evidence >> >> When sufficiently motivated to do so sufficiently >> shows that no such evidence exists. Are you totally >> clueless about inductive inference? > > For starters, inductive inference has absolutely nothing to do with > formal proof. Did I fucking mention formal? The base meaning of proof is: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" No need to wear a tuxedo. I have always been using these base meanings since the first time that I posted 28 years ago. > I really don't think you really grasp what *proof* means. > > And what do you mean by 'sufficiently motivated'? It is logically > possible that there is someone out there who has the evidence but has > chosen not to come forward with it. Perhaps they were happy with the > election results and don't want them questioned; perhaps they are using > the evidence to blackmail those responsible, or perhaps they simply have > no interest in coming forward with the evidence -- none of these > possibilities raises any sort of logical contradiction which is what you > would need if you actually wanted to claim to have some sort of proof. > > Just because people who were motivated to come up with evidence didn't > find any does *not* mean no such evidence exists. Proofs of the > nonexistence of anything are notoriously difficult. > > Emprical evidence (i.e. inductive inference) is inherently > probabalistic. Formal proofs are absolute. You can certainly claim that > the existence of election fraud is massively improbable, but you can't > actually prove this in a formal sense. > So how strong is looking at your own left hand evidence or proof that left hands exist? > If you're not interested in formal proofs you should be frequenting > different newsgroups. > > 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 | 2026-07-12 16:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <11314k5$302k5$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646556 |
On 2026-07-12 16:10, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-12 15:44, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he thinks that he will be able to prove that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince anyone about the correctness of one 'basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact', how many peta- years do you think he needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point: You have a *very* different definition of proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one used by logicians. It's usually clear from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your posts that you have very different definitions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many things which is why people keep pressing you for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware >>>>>>>>>>>> of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>>> entire world". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the >>>>>>>>>>>> *legal* definition of proof, which is very different from >>>>>>>>>>>> the *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you >>>>>>>>>>>> seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits >>>>>>>>>>>> on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims >>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're concerned >>>>>>>>>>>> about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>> by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But to claim that they were therefore proven wrong would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be false. And we now do have evidence that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously have a very idiosyncratic definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that >>>>>>>>>>>> your claims do not actually constitute anything resembling >>>>>>>>>>>> proof on the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his >>>>>>>>>>>> claims, but that is very different from claiming that the >>>>>>>>>>>> claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence is >>>>> sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. >>>> >>>> The fact that no one has provided any evidence >>> >>> When sufficiently motivated to do so sufficiently >>> shows that no such evidence exists. Are you totally >>> clueless about inductive inference? >> >> For starters, inductive inference has absolutely nothing to do with >> formal proof. > > Did I fucking mention formal? You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean formal proof. > The base meaning of proof is: > "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" > No need to wear a tuxedo That's a possible meaning for empirical proof but I wouldn't call it the 'base meaning'. But if you're only interested in empirical proof you should be posting to a different set of newsgroups. > I have always been using these base meanings since > the first time that I posted 28 years ago. > >> I really don't think you really grasp what *proof* means. >> >> And what do you mean by 'sufficiently motivated'? It is logically >> possible that there is someone out there who has the evidence but has >> chosen not to come forward with it. Perhaps they were happy with the >> election results and don't want them questioned; perhaps they are >> using the evidence to blackmail those responsible, or perhaps they >> simply have no interest in coming forward with the evidence -- none of >> these possibilities raises any sort of logical contradiction which is >> what you would need if you actually wanted to claim to have some sort >> of proof. >> >> Just because people who were motivated to come up with evidence didn't >> find any does *not* mean no such evidence exists. Proofs of the >> nonexistence of anything are notoriously difficult. >> >> Emprical evidence (i.e. inductive inference) is inherently >> probabalistic. Formal proofs are absolute. You can certainly claim >> that the existence of election fraud is massively improbable, but you >> can't actually prove this in a formal sense. >> > > So how strong is looking at your own left hand > evidence or proof that left hands exist? It's strong empirical evidence but it is not formal proof. And it does not guarantee 100% that your left hand exists when you factor in the possibility of dreams, hallucinations, etc. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 18:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <113187q$36qo0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646559 |
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-12 16:10, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-12 15:44, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 4:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he thinks that he will be able to prove that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince anyone about the correctness of one 'basic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact', how many peta- years do you think he needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by logicians. They can be supported but not proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point: You have a *very* different definition of proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one used by logicians. It's usually clear from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your posts that you have very different definitions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many things which is why people keep pressing you for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> unaware of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> supply such evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> *legal* definition of proof, which is very different from >>>>>>>>>>>>> the *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you >>>>>>>>>>>>> seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits >>>>>>>>>>>>> on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims >>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>> about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>> by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole, they had no evidence that such things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existed. But to claim that they were therefore proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong would simply be false. And we now do have evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously have a very idiosyncratic definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that >>>>>>>>>>>>> your claims do not actually constitute anything resembling >>>>>>>>>>>>> proof on the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> election irregularities sufficient to support widespread >>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud. My claim is simply that this has not actually been >>>>>>>>>>>>> *proven*. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support >>>>>>>>>>>>> his claims, but that is very different from claiming that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence is >>>>>> sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that no one has provided any evidence >>>> >>>> When sufficiently motivated to do so sufficiently >>>> shows that no such evidence exists. Are you totally >>>> clueless about inductive inference? >>> >>> For starters, inductive inference has absolutely nothing to do with >>> formal proof. >> >> Did I fucking mention formal? > > You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only reasonable for > people to conclude that when you say proof you mean formal proof. > I am using stipulated definitions because it is very important that the least educated totally understand me. >> The base meaning of proof is: >> "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" > No need to wear a >> tuxedo > > That's a possible meaning for empirical proof but I wouldn't call it the > 'base meaning'. But if you're only interested in empirical proof you > should be posting to a different set of newsgroups. > It is the meaning that 50 year olds with a 3rd grade education can understand so I am stipulating that it the meaning that I am referring to. >> I have always been using these base meanings since >> the first time that I posted 28 years ago. >> >>> I really don't think you really grasp what *proof* means. >>> >>> And what do you mean by 'sufficiently motivated'? It is logically >>> possible that there is someone out there who has the evidence but has >>> chosen not to come forward with it. Perhaps they were happy with the >>> election results and don't want them questioned; perhaps they are >>> using the evidence to blackmail those responsible, or perhaps they >>> simply have no interest in coming forward with the evidence -- none >>> of these possibilities raises any sort of logical contradiction which >>> is what you would need if you actually wanted to claim to have some >>> sort of proof. >>> >>> Just because people who were motivated to come up with evidence >>> didn't find any does *not* mean no such evidence exists. Proofs of >>> the nonexistence of anything are notoriously difficult. >>> >>> Emprical evidence (i.e. inductive inference) is inherently >>> probabalistic. Formal proofs are absolute. You can certainly claim >>> that the existence of election fraud is massively improbable, but you >>> can't actually prove this in a formal sense. >>> >> >> So how strong is looking at your own left hand >> evidence or proof that left hands exist? > > It's strong empirical evidence but it is not formal proof. And it does > not guarantee 100% that your left hand exists when you factor in the > possibility of dreams, hallucinations, etc. > > André > It is stipulated that you are looking at your own left hand. -- 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 | 2026-07-12 18:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131bm7$378em$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646560 |
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-12 16:10, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-12 15:44, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-12 15:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that it will convince everybody of the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. he thinks that he will be able to prove that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2020 because of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A few questions: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does he need to construct his proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Given that even after 20 years he did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convince anyone about the correctness of one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'basic fact', how many peta- years do you think he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly change the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2020 presidential election? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used by logicians. They can be supported but not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point: You have a *very* different definition of proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the one used by logicians. It's usually clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from your posts that you have very different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions of many things which is why people keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressing you for your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The utter and complete failure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes of course that is perfectly true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand the absence of evidence within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claim of evidence proves a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't prove anything one way or another. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a big difference between saying that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unaware of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supply such evidence and the claim that "no evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists in the entire world". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not saying that dip shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS A FACT THAT >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no actual evidence in the whole world >>>>>>>>>>>>> of any election fraud at all that could possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> change the result of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence of this "fact"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically impossible for the premises to be true and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't even remotely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can be resolved using formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the entire world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire world" to offer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *legal* definition of proof, which is very different from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned about is the legal notion you have no reason to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be bothered by Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black hole, they had no evidence that such things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existed. But to claim that they were therefore proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong would simply be false. And we now do have evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How on earth would that constitute proof? You >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously have a very idiosyncratic definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'proof'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He could have left for any number of reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists will not equivocate on this point. That you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivocate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually means. Where have I equivocated? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claims do not actually constitute anything resembling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof on the formal definition of proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the 2020 presidential election. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election irregularities sufficient to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>> widespread fraud. My claim is simply that this has not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually been *proven*. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks >>>>>>>>>>>>> believing that there was fraud. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you don't know what "proof" means. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his claims, but that is very different from claiming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the claims have been disproven in the formal sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world >>>>>>>>>>>>> that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY >>>>>>>>>>>>> CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That no human being on the planet ever presented any >>>>>>>>>>> actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud >>>>>>>>>>> that could have possibly changed the outcome of the >>>>>>>>>>> 2020 presidential election >>>>>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not >>>>>>>>> even evidence of other things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying >>>>>>>>> exactly what it is not evidence is >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> > One-two punch Destroys Liars >>>>>>>> > #WhatIsTheEvidence >>>>>>>> > #ThatIsNotEvidence >>>>>>>> > Around and around until Defeated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any evidence is >>>>>>> sufficient proof that this evidence does not exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact that no one has provided any evidence >>>>> >>>>> When sufficiently motivated to do so sufficiently >>>>> shows that no such evidence exists. Are you totally >>>>> clueless about inductive inference? >>>> >>>> For starters, inductive inference has absolutely nothing to do with >>>> formal proof. >>> >>> Did I fucking mention formal? >> >> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only reasonable >> for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean formal proof. >> > > I am using stipulated definitions because it is > very important that the least educated totally > understand me. When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions used there. You came here talking about the Halting problem proof and Gödel's proof, both of which use the word 'proof' in the standard mathematical sense. To suggest you meant something else when you discussed these is simply ridiculous (or indicates a massive lack of understanding on your part). >>> The base meaning of proof is: >>> "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" > No need to wear >>> a tuxedo >> >> That's a possible meaning for empirical proof but I wouldn't call it >> the 'base meaning'. But if you're only interested in empirical proof >> you should be posting to a different set of newsgroups. >> > > It is the meaning that 50 year olds with a 3rd > grade education can understand so I am stipulating > that it the meaning that I am referring to. You won't find those people here so what is the point? And I fail to see why your 'base meaning' would be any easier for such people to comprehend than the more standard meaning. The standard meaning is unambiguous, whereas your definition is not particularly useful unless you also define what you mean by 'sufficient'. >>> I have always been using these base meanings since >>> the first time that I posted 28 years ago. >>> >>>> I really don't think you really grasp what *proof* means. >>>> >>>> And what do you mean by 'sufficiently motivated'? It is logically >>>> possible that there is someone out there who has the evidence but >>>> has chosen not to come forward with it. Perhaps they were happy with >>>> the election results and don't want them questioned; perhaps they >>>> are using the evidence to blackmail those responsible, or perhaps >>>> they simply have no interest in coming forward with the evidence -- >>>> none of these possibilities raises any sort of logical contradiction >>>> which is what you would need if you actually wanted to claim to have >>>> some sort of proof. >>>> >>>> Just because people who were motivated to come up with evidence >>>> didn't find any does *not* mean no such evidence exists. Proofs of >>>> the nonexistence of anything are notoriously difficult. >>>> >>>> Emprical evidence (i.e. inductive inference) is inherently >>>> probabalistic. Formal proofs are absolute. You can certainly claim >>>> that the existence of election fraud is massively improbable, but >>>> you can't actually prove this in a formal sense. >>>> >>> >>> So how strong is looking at your own left hand >>> evidence or proof that left hands exist? >> >> It's strong empirical evidence but it is not formal proof. And it does >> not guarantee 100% that your left hand exists when you factor in the >> possibility of dreams, hallucinations, etc. >> >> André >> > > It is stipulated that you are looking at your own > left hand. I'm not currently looking at my own left hand. Your stipulation doesn't change that reality. You seem to think that stipulating things holds some magical power to alter the universe. It does not. And stipulations aren't worth anything if other people don't accept those stipulations. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 19:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131cv8$37vhf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646562 |
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only reasonable >>> for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean formal proof. >>> >> >> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >> very important that the least educated totally >> understand me. > > When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions used > there. This would generally be the case except when one is overruling and superseding all existing foundations with something else that needs to own terms of the art that do not yet exist. > You came here talking about the Halting problem proof and Gödel's > proof, both of which use the word 'proof' in the standard mathematical > sense. To suggest you meant something else when you discussed these is > simply ridiculous (or indicates a massive lack of understanding on your > part). > >>>> The base meaning of proof is: >>>> "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" > No need to wear >>>> a tuxedo >>> >>> That's a possible meaning for empirical proof but I wouldn't call it >>> the 'base meaning'. But if you're only interested in empirical proof >>> you should be posting to a different set of newsgroups. >>> >> >> It is the meaning that 50 year olds with a 3rd >> grade education can understand so I am stipulating >> that it the meaning that I am referring to. > > You won't find those people here so what is the point? And I fail to see > why your 'base meaning' would be any easier for such people to > comprehend than the more standard meaning. The standard meaning is > unambiguous, whereas your definition is not particularly useful unless > you also define what you mean by 'sufficient'. > I will not define my terms recursively for fucking ever. >> >> It is stipulated that you are looking at your own >> left hand. > > I'm not currently looking at my own left hand. Your stipulation doesn't > change that reality. It assumes away many philosophical possibilities that would otherwise be required to be considered. > You seem to think that stipulating things holds > some magical power to alter the universe. It does not. And stipulations > aren't worth anything if other people don't accept those stipulations. > > 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 21:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131dbj$37b9o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646563 |
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only reasonable >>>> for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean formal proof. >>>> >>> >>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>> very important that the least educated totally >>> understand me. >> >> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions used >> there. > > This would generally be the case except On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 20:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131edt$387ut$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646564 |
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only reasonable >>>>> for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean formal proof. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>>> very important that the least educated totally >>>> understand me. >>> >>> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions used >>> there. >> >> This would generally be the case except > On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: > > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. > The terms of my art must be defined from scratch. The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks this up. 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" proof (noun) evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true https://www.dictionary.com/browse/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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 21:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131efq$37b9o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646565 |
On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only >>>>>> reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean >>>>>> formal proof. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>>>> very important that the least educated totally >>>>> understand me. >>>> >>>> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>> used there. >>> >>> This would generally be the case except >> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >> > > The terms of my art must be defined from scratch. On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 20:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131emh$387ut$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646566 |
On 7/12/2026 8:19 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>>>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only >>>>>>> reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>> mean formal proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>>>>> very important that the least educated totally >>>>>> understand me. >>>>> >>>>> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>> used there. >>>> >>>> This would generally be the case except >>> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>> >> >> The terms of my art must be defined from scratch. > > On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: > > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. > My terms of my art are my Stipulative definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition fucking jack ass. -- 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 21:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131er9$37b9o$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646567 |
On 7/12/2026 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 8:19 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>>>>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only >>>>>>>> reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>> mean formal proof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>>>>>> very important that the least educated totally >>>>>>> understand me. >>>>>> >>>>>> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>> used there. >>>>> >>>>> This would generally be the case except >>>> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>> >>> >>> The terms of my art must be defined from scratch. >> >> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >> > > My terms of my art are my > Stipulative definition > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition And the existing definitions in mathematics and computation theory, including the definitions of true, proven, provable, complete, incomplete, decidable, undecidable, etc. are stipulated definitions. And as your yourself said: On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 20:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1131f06$38drs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646568 |
On 7/12/2026 8:26 PM, dbush wrote: > On 7/12/2026 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 8:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>>>>>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only >>>>>>>>> reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>> mean formal proof. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>>>>>>> very important that the least educated totally >>>>>>>> understand me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>>> used there. >>>>>> >>>>>> This would generally be the case except >>>>> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The terms of my art must be defined from scratch. >>> >>> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>> >> >> My terms of my art are my >> Stipulative definition >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition > > And the existing definitions in mathematics and computation theory, > including the definitions of true, proven, provable, complete, > incomplete, decidable, undecidable, etc. are stipulated definitions. > > And as your yourself said: > I am replacing the foundation of all of those with Olcott's inherently correct reasoning. -- 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 | 2026-07-13 08:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Totally clueless about inductive inference? |
| Message-ID | <1132tti$3lnch$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646565 |
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>> >>>>>> You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only >>>>>> reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean >>>>>> formal proof. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am using stipulated definitions because it is >>>>> very important that the least educated totally >>>>> understand me. >>>> >>>> When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>> used there. >>> >>> This would generally be the case except >> On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote: >> > ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >> > > The terms of my art must be defined from scratch. > The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks > this up. > > 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" > > proof (noun) > evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art. You're simply opening the door for equivocation in your alleged system. Non-specialist dictionaries are hardly the place to look for sufficiently precise definitions to serve as technical terms. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web