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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11336e8$107e$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646607 |
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >> be correctly accepted as true. > > You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all > > general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this > > task is feasible to accomplish. > I am not talking about my claims. Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. > I am saying that a key element of the generic > process of dividing truth from lies requires > >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >> be correctly accepted as true. You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11336pc$3or9q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646609 |
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>> task is feasible to accomplish. > >> I am not talking about my claims. > > Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more > than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. > >> I am saying that a key element of the generic >> process of dividing truth from lies requires > >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>> be correctly accepted as true. > > You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my > last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this? > THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF Claims without supporting evidence cannot be correctly accepted as true. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1133hh0$15ii$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646610 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all > >>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this > >>> task is feasible to accomplish. > >> I am not talking about my claims. > > Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more > > than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. > >> I am saying that a key element of the generic > >> process of dividing truth from lies requires > >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >>>> be correctly accepted as true. > > You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my > > last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this? > THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF > Claims without supporting evidence cannot > be correctly accepted as true. That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. But I'll try putting the question to you again: Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish? > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1133q26$3v2gm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646620 |
On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>> task is feasible to accomplish. > >>>> I am not talking about my claims. > >>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more >>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. > >>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires > >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my >>> last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this? > > >> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >> be correctly accepted as true. > > That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have > a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. The above is the key point that I am making and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge this point. > But I'll try putting the > question to you again: > > Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims > that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that > this task is feasible to accomplish? > The proof of my claims comes from comprehending the exact meaning of my words. You always disagree with my definitions of my terms as a lame excuse to remain nothing but disagreeable. >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1135b7d$2tb1$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646628 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims > >>>>> that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, > >>>>> and that this task is feasible to accomplish. > >>>> I am not talking about my claims. > >>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any > >>> more than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. > >>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic > >>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires > >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in > >>> my last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept > >>> this? > >> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF > >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot > >> be correctly accepted as true. > > That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have > > a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. > The above is the key point that I am making > and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge > this point. Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild claims, should not be accepted without evidence. But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I am calling you out as a hypocrite. > > But I'll try putting the question to you again: > > Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims > > that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that > > this task is feasible to accomplish? > The proof of my claims comes from comprehending > the exact meaning of my words. You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning. > You always disagree with my definitions of my terms as a lame excuse to > remain nothing but disagreeable. You promulgate falsehoods. You attempt to prevent their exposure by equivocally "defining" terms. Your very posting style makes it difficult/impossible to expose your falsehoods without appearing disagreeable to you. I care about the truth. That's not something I expect you to understand. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 12:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1135sci$issv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646647 |
On 7/14/2026 7:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> [ .... ] > >>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>>>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>> that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, >>>>>>> and that this task is feasible to accomplish. > >>>>>> I am not talking about my claims. > >>>>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any >>>>> more than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. > >>>>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires > >>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>>>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in >>>>> my last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept >>>>> this? > > >>>> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>> be correctly accepted as true. > >>> That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have >>> a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. > >> The above is the key point that I am making >> and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge >> this point. > > Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've > made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild > claims, should not be accepted without evidence. > As soon as you quit your dick head move I will stop using this course language. Until then I really need their slap-in-the0face power. > But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I > am calling you out as a hypocrite. > >>> But I'll try putting the question to you again: > >>> Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims >>> that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that >>> this task is feasible to accomplish? > > >> The proof of my claims comes from comprehending >> the exact meaning of my words. > > You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning. > You always disagree with everything that I say instead of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking doing that. >> You always disagree with my definitions of my terms as a lame excuse to >> remain nothing but disagreeable. > > You promulgate falsehoods. Stipulative definition A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition semantic (adjective) of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic entail (verb) to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" > You attempt to prevent their exposure by > equivocally "defining" terms. Your very posting style makes it > difficult/impossible to expose your falsehoods without appearing > disagreeable to you. > > I care about the truth. That's not something I expect you to understand. > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1136392$12vs$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646660 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/14/2026 7:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: [ .... ] > >>> That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to > >>> have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. > >> The above is the key point that I am making > >> and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge > >> this point. > > Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've > > made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild > > claims, should not be accepted without evidence. > As soon as you quit your dick head move I will stop > using this course language. Until then I really need > their slap-in-the0face power. Stop kidding yourself. Continual swearing just emphasises your impotence. > > But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I > > am calling you out as a hypocrite. > >>> But I'll try putting the question to you again: > >>> Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your > >>> claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic > >>> graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish? > >> The proof of my claims comes from comprehending > >> the exact meaning of my words. > > You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning. > You always disagree with everything that I say instead > of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking > doing that. Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and even agree with. Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, it doesn't thereby become true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can be proven. [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11364ef$ljud$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646675 |
On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 7:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>>> That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to >>>>> have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. > >>>> The above is the key point that I am making >>>> and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge >>>> this point. > >>> Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've >>> made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild >>> claims, should not be accepted without evidence. > >> As soon as you quit your dick head move I will stop >> using this course language. Until then I really need >> their slap-in-the0face power. > > Stop kidding yourself. Continual swearing just emphasises your > impotence. > >>> But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I >>> am calling you out as a hypocrite. > >>>>> But I'll try putting the question to you again: > >>>>> Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your >>>>> claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic >>>>> graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish? > >>>> The proof of my claims comes from comprehending >>>> the exact meaning of my words. > >>> You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning. > >> You always disagree with everything that I say instead >> of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking >> doing that. > > Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject I am replacing all of that nit wit. > matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and > even agree with. > > Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, it doesn't thereby become > true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can > be proven. > > [ .... ] > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <113656h$12vs$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646682 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > >> You always disagree with everything that I say instead > >> of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking > >> doing that. > > Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject > I am replacing all of that nit wit. You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won't affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike. > > matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and > > even agree with. > > Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, it doesn't thereby become > > true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can > > be proven. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 15:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11366fl$mait$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646685 |
On 7/14/2026 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> You always disagree with everything that I say instead >>>> of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking >>>> doing that. > >>> Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject > >> I am replacing all of that nit wit. > > You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won't > affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike. > P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically the language. This is the only inference steps allowed. That defines a whole new process. >>> matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and >>> even agree with. > >>> Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, I am stipulating a whole fucking different set of steps. > it doesn't thereby become >>> true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can >>> be proven. > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 20:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11367aq$12vs$4@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646690 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/14/2026 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> You always disagree with everything that I say instead > >>>> of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking > >>>> doing that. > >>> Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject > >> I am replacing all of that nit wit. > > You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won't > > affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike. > P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic > derivation implements semantic entailment > encoded in syntactically the language. > This is the only inference steps allowed. For the third time, consider correcting the grammatical error in the above before you copy and paste it again. > That defines a whole new process. It will define something not very interesting in a familiar mathematical category of things. Universal results such as the principle of explosion and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem will continue to apply inside it. > >>> matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and > >>> even agree with. > >>> Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, > I am stipulating a whole fucking different set of steps. You can stipulate 2 + 2 = 5 for all I care. It doesn't render it true. It's far from clear precisely what you're trying to stipulate, and it's even less clear _why_ you're trying to do it. > >>> it doesn't thereby become true. It's one way to lead to a > >>> contradiction, from which anything can be proven. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <113689g$mt76$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646693 |
On 7/14/2026 3:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>>>> You always disagree with everything that I say instead >>>>>> of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking >>>>>> doing that. > >>>>> Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject > >>>> I am replacing all of that nit wit. > >>> You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won't >>> affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike. > >> P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic >> derivation implements semantic entailment >> encoded in syntactically the language. >> This is the only inference steps allowed. > > For the third time, consider correcting the grammatical error in the > above before you copy and paste it again. > I see no error. P <semantically entails> Q means that means semantic meaning of P necessitates the semantic meaning of Q. I own a pet cat <semantically entails> that I own a pet. >> That defines a whole new process. > > It will define something not very interesting in a familiar mathematical > category of things. Universal results such as the principle of explosion > and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem will continue to apply inside it. > Yes infallible reasoning is very boring yet prevents many terrible things. >>>>> matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and >>>>> even agree with. > >>>>> Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, > >> I am stipulating a whole fucking different set of steps. > > You can stipulate 2 + 2 = 5 for all I care. It doesn't render it true. > > It's far from clear precisely what you're trying to stipulate, and it's> even less clear _why_ you're trying to do it. > Only because you utterly insist on only being disagreeable and nothing else. >>>>> it doesn't thereby become true. It's one way to lead to a >>>>> contradiction, from which anything can be proven. > >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11362a6$kvd9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646620 |
On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >>>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>> that all >>>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish. >> >>>>> I am not talking about my claims. >> >>>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any >>>> more >>>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. >> >>>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires >> >>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >>>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my >>>> last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this? >> >> >>> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >> Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. > A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or logical reasoning. That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions as true seems to indicate that your understanding of correct reasoning is very woefully deficient. > And not more useful than trying to have a sensible conversation with > a rock. > > It is sufficient to point out at least some error. Sometimes that leads > to conversation even if not a sensible one but sometimes one can find > good enough counter-argument to avoid further converstkion. > Disagreeing with every little thing is moronically stupid. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 11:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1137fbq$119i3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646671 |
On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>> >>>>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>> that all >>>>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish. >>> >>>>>> I am not talking about my claims. >>> >>>>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any >>>>> more >>>>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. >>> >>>>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires >>> >>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>> >>>>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my >>>>> last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this? >>> >>> >>>> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>> >>> Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. > > A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented > as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or > logical reasoning. > > That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions > as true seems to indicate that your understanding of > correct reasoning is very woefully deficient. It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms a sufficient basis. Your "seems to indicate" gives the impression you are trying to deceive as you don't identify any particular assertion. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1138abj$19qhj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646733 |
On 7/15/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>> >>>>>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>>> that all >>>>>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish. >>>> >>>>>>> I am not talking about my claims. >>>> >>>>>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, >>>>>> any more >>>>>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. >>>> >>>>>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>>>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires >>>> >>>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>> >>>>>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized >>>>>> in my >>>>>> last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept >>>>>> this? >>>> >>>> >>>>> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>> >>>> Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. >> >> A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented >> as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or >> logical reasoning. >> >> That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions >> as true seems to indicate that your understanding of >> correct reasoning is very woefully deficient. > > It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient > basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms > a sufficient basis. > YES. At least 1/3 of the population accepts despicable lies as verified facts because they honestly believe that yelling at someone proves one's actual point. > Your "seems to indicate" gives the impression you are trying to deceive > as you don't identify any particular assertion. > The infinite set of assertions. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11393ca$1i1mp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646750 |
On 7/15/2026 8:52 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>>>> that all >>>>>>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and >>>>>>>>> that this >>>>>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish. >>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not talking about my claims. >>>>> >>>>>>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, >>>>>>> any more >>>>>>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. >>>>> >>>>>>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>>>>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>>>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized >>>>>>> in my >>>>>>> last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept >>>>>>> this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>> Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. >>> >>> A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented >>> as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or >>> logical reasoning. >>> >>> That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions >>> as true seems to indicate that your understanding of >>> correct reasoning is very woefully deficient. >> >> It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient >> basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms >> a sufficient basis. >> > > YES. At least 1/3 of the population accepts despicable > lies as verified facts because they honestly believe > that yelling at someone proves one's actual point. Did you tell that to the cops that arrested you? > >> Your "seems to indicate" gives the impression you are trying to deceive >> as you don't identify any particular assertion. >> > > The infinite set of assertions. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-16 11:10 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <113a3lp$1qco8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646750 |
On 15/07/2026 18:52, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>>>> that all >>>>>>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and >>>>>>>>> that this >>>>>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish. >>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not talking about my claims. >>>>> >>>>>>> Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, >>>>>>> any more >>>>>>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness. >>>>> >>>>>>>> I am saying that a key element of the generic >>>>>>>> process of dividing truth from lies requires >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>>>> You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized >>>>>>> in my >>>>>>> last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept >>>>>>> this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>> Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting. >>> >>> A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented >>> as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or >>> logical reasoning. >>> >>> That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions >>> as true seems to indicate that your understanding of >>> correct reasoning is very woefully deficient. >> >> It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient >> basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms >> a sufficient basis. > > YES. At least 1/3 of the population accepts despicable > lies as verified facts because they honestly believe > that yelling at someone proves one's actual point. There are such people but I don't think they are that numerous. And, if they really believe so and act accordingly they tend to have a social status that makes their beliefs and opinions non-influential to most of the society. But your "YES" makes no sense. Usually "YES" indicates agreement or disageement, offen following a a specification or explanation of what is agreed. But I can't interprete what follows ans anyway realated to anything above you could agree or disagree. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 10:59 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1134q9u$7f3g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646607 |
On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: > On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless. >> >>>>>>>>> Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >> >> >>>>>>>> The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world >>>>>>>> is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists >>>>>>>> in the entire world. >> >>>>>>> Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >> >>>>>> Look everywhere and find none. >> >>>>> That's not evidence. >> >>>> It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere >>>> at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves >>>> anything so odn't expect any proof now. >> >> >>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >> task is feasible to accomplish. > > I am not talking about my claims. You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting evidence" you did not exclude your own claims. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 14:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <113624h$ktgl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646638 |
On 7/14/2026 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>>>>>>> Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>> >>>>>>> Look everywhere and find none. >>> >>>>>> That's not evidence. >>> >>>>> It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere >>>>> at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves >>>>> anything so odn't expect any proof now. >>> >>> >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>> >>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>> task is feasible to accomplish. >> >> I am not talking about my claims. > > You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting > evidence" you did not exclude your own claims. > A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or logical reasoning. My assertions prove themselves completely true on the basis of the exact meaning of their words. When people reject my Stipulative definitions of my terms these people are stupidly incorrect. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 11:16 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1137flc$11c6n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646670 |
On 14/07/2026 22:19, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>>>>>> Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists? >>>> >>>>>>>> Look everywhere and find none. >>>> >>>>>>> That's not evidence. >>>> >>>>>> It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere >>>>>> at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves >>>>>> anything so odn't expect any proof now. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>> >>>> You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that >>>> all >>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>> task is feasible to accomplish. >>> >>> I am not talking about my claims. >> >> You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting >> evidence" you did not exclude your own claims. > > A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented > as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or > logical reasoning. > > My assertions prove themselves completely true on the > basis of the exact meaning of their words. When people > reject my Stipulative definitions of my terms these > people are stupidly incorrect. The scope of a stipulative definition ends when it is contredicted by another stipulative or other definition. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web