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 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 09:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott's system |
| Message-ID | <11307hu$2sh45$1@dont-email.me> |
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? 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. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508 -- 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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11308du$akt$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646505 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct? I think it's a highly pertinent question. [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 11:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1130eg3$2ut1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646507 |
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? > > No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question > wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. > Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM > is correct? > This is best understood by how the single example is proved correct. The system uses a similar process on every other example. > I think it's a highly pertinent question. > Asking for me to provide infinite conclusive proof is an incorrect requirement. > [ .... ] > >> -- >> 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 | 2026-07-12 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1130gg7$akt$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #646510 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? > > No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question > > wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. > > Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM > > is correct? > This is best understood by how the single example > is proved correct. Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no bearing on the correctness of the whole system. > The system uses a similar process on every other example. The system has not yet been constructed. > > I think it's a highly pertinent question. > Asking for me to provide infinite conclusive proof > is an incorrect requirement. Not at all. In symbolic logic, and in fact in all mathematics, proofs of "infinite propositions" are commonplace. For example, the principle of explosion is proven not just for a particular contradiction, but for _all_ possible contradictions. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-12 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1130h01$2vqe5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646513 |
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? > >>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question >>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM >>> is correct? > > >> This is best understood by how the single example >> is proved correct. > > Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no bearing > on the correctness of the whole system. > It is a very important example that does determine the fate of our whole Democracy. When some aspect of the ideas that I am proposing succinctly resolves this concrete case that proves that my ideas are sound. -- 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 | 2026-07-13 10:38 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <11324lq$3dv04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646515 |
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >> >>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>> question >>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>> is correct? >> >> >>> This is best understood by how the single example >>> is proved correct. >> >> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no bearing >> on the correctness of the whole system. > > It is a very important example that does determine > the fate of our whole Democracy. It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times been restored where it has collapsed. It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched to another state. But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your example question could be fullly convincingly answered. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11333n6$3notj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646577 |
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>> >>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>>> question >>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>> SYSTEM >>>>> is correct? >>> >>> >>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>> is proved correct. >>> >>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>> bearing >>> on the correctness of the whole system. >> >> It is a very important example that does determine >> the fate of our whole Democracy. > > It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed > may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times > been restored where it has collapsed. > > It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At > least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their > freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, > much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched > to another state. > > But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your > example question could be fullly convincingly answered. > It seems that most people are too fucking stupid to get this 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 12:19 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1137jbs$12cb1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646601 |
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: > On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>> >>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>>>> question >>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>> SYSTEM >>>>>> is correct? >>>> >>>> >>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>> is proved correct. >>>> >>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>> bearing >>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>> >>> It is a very important example that does determine >>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >> >> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >> been restored where it has collapsed. >> >> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >> to another state. >> >> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. > > It seems that most people are too fucking stupid > to get this I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. > Claims without supporting evidence cannot > be correctly accepted as true. I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1138ca3$1aggb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646740 |
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>> >>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>>>>> question >>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>> example. >>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>> SYSTEM >>>>>>> is correct? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>> >>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>> bearing >>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>> >>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>> >>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>> >>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>> to another state. >>> >>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >> >> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >> to get this > > I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. > >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >> be correctly accepted as true. > > I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. > We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that they accept claims without supporting evidence as verified facts. They do this without having any idea what evidence is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how you prove your point. -- 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 | 2026-07-15 11:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1138ecq$19nsm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646756 |
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>>> SYSTEM >>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>>> bearing >>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>> >>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>> >>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>> >>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>>> to another state. >>>> >>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>> >>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>> to get this >> >> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >> >>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >> > > We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because > too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that > they accept claims without supporting evidence as > verified facts. > > They do this without having any idea what evidence > is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that > they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how > you prove your point. Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 12:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1138fok$1bnvh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646759 |
On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: >> On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>>>> bearing >>>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>>> >>>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>>> >>>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>>>> to another state. >>>>> >>>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>>> >>>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>>> to get this >>> >>> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >>> >>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>> >>> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >>> >> >> We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because >> too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that >> they accept claims without supporting evidence as >> verified facts. >> >> They do this without having any idea what evidence >> is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that >> they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how >> you prove your point. > > Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. > > You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. > > The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. > > André > I am asking people to accept truisms such as this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing with every single point: 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 | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 13:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1138n7r$1du98$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646761 |
On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>> His question >>>>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>> no bearing >>>>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>> times >>>>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>>>>> to another state. >>>>>> >>>>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>>>> >>>>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>>>> to get this >>>> >>>> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >>>> >>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>> >>>> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >>>> >>> >>> We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because >>> too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that >>> they accept claims without supporting evidence as >>> verified facts. >>> >>> They do this without having any idea what evidence >>> is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that >>> they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how >>> you prove your point. >> >> Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. >> >> You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >> >> The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. >> >> André >> > > I am asking people to accept truisms such as > this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing > with every single point: > > Claims without supporting evidence cannot > be correctly accepted as true. I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism. And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims when you give no supporting evidence. Instead, you always assert that your claims are 'true on the basis of the meanings of the words', but that's not how evidence actually works. the only statements that are true based solely on the meanings of their words are trivially uninteresting claims. Try to find any examples of academic papers where the only supporting evidence they offer is that their claims are 'true on the basis of the meanings of the words'. You won't find any because that simply doesn't cut it. People reject your claims because (1) your words are too vaguely defined to be useful, and (2) even when we do sort out the meanings of your words the statements you make simply don't follow coherently from those meanings. On top of that the claims you make are overly grandiose, and the more grandiose a claim, the greater the need to supply supporting evidence is. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 15:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1138qrs$1femd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646768 |
On 7/15/2026 2:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote: >> On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>> His question >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>>>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>> no bearing >>>>>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>> times >>>>>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas >>>>>>> switched >>>>>>> to another state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>>>>> to get this >>>>> >>>>> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >>>>> >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because >>>> too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that >>>> they accept claims without supporting evidence as >>>> verified facts. >>>> >>>> They do this without having any idea what evidence >>>> is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that >>>> they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how >>>> you prove your point. >>> >>> Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. >>> >>> You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >>> >>> The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> I am asking people to accept truisms such as >> this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing >> with every single point: >> >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >> be correctly accepted as true. > > I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism. > Then you are not bothering to pay 100% perfect attention to the exact meaning of every word. That people are not paying attention and totally obeying the exact meaning of those words is the key error that allows Nazi propaganda to function. > And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims > when you give no supporting evidence. > My "claims" are proven true by the exact meaning of my words. It took fools here a few round and rounds before they even understood that facts are true. > Instead, you always assert that your claims are 'true on the basis of > the meanings of the words', but that's not how evidence actually works. No that it how 100% perfect proof works. > the only statements that are true based solely on the meanings of their > words are trivially uninteresting claims. There are 200 petabytes of "atomic facts" that disagree. > Try to find any examples of > academic papers where the only supporting evidence they offer is that > their claims are 'true on the basis of the meanings of the words'. You > won't find any because that simply doesn't cut it. > Everyone else is doing something entirely different. You don't seems to have a clue of the difference between analytical truth 5 > 3 and empirical truth H2O is water. > People reject your claims because (1) your words are too vaguely defined > to be useful, Total bullshit. These words SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN: 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" > and (2) even when we do sort out the meanings of your > words the statements you make simply don't follow coherently from those > meanings. > SO FAR NOT ONE PERSON HAS UNDERSTOOD ONE WORD Because they always make sure to disagree with everything that I say. > On top of that the claims you make are overly grandiose, and the more > grandiose a claim, the greater the need to supply supporting evidence is. > > André > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 18:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <11397ih$1itgq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646773 |
On 2026-07-15 14:34, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 2:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>>> His question >>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>>>>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>>> no bearing >>>>>>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>>>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has >>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United >>>>>>>> States. At >>>>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas >>>>>>>> switched >>>>>>>> to another state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>>>>>> to get this >>>>>> >>>>>> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>>> >>>>>> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because >>>>> too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that >>>>> they accept claims without supporting evidence as >>>>> verified facts. >>>>> >>>>> They do this without having any idea what evidence >>>>> is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that >>>>> they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how >>>>> you prove your point. >>>> >>>> Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. >>>> >>>> You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >>>> >>>> The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is >>>> you. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> I am asking people to accept truisms such as >>> this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing >>> with every single point: >>> >>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >> I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism. >> > > Then you are not bothering to pay 100% perfect > attention to the exact meaning of every word. You have a peculiar definition of 'truism', much like you have peculiar definitions of most everything. > That people are not paying attention and totally > obeying the exact meaning of those words is the > key error that allows Nazi propaganda to function. > >> And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims >> when you give no supporting evidence. >> > > My "claims" are proven true by the exact meaning of > my words. It took fools here a few round and rounds > before they even understood that facts are true. > >> Instead, you always assert that your claims are 'true on the basis of >> the meanings of the words', but that's not how evidence actually works. > > No that it how 100% perfect proof works. That's a possible way for proofs to work, but its not how the overwhelming majority of them work, and its certainly not how your 'proofs' work. >> the only statements that are true based solely on the meanings of >> their words are trivially uninteresting claims. > > There are 200 petabytes of "atomic facts" that disagree. The 200 petabytes of atomic facts that you keep talking about exists only in your imagination. And this is a perfect example of a claim that you expect people to accept without evidence. 200 petabytes is just something you pulled out of your ass. >> Try to find any examples of academic papers where the only supporting >> evidence they offer is that their claims are 'true on the basis of the >> meanings of the words'. You won't find any because that simply doesn't >> cut it. >> > > Everyone else is doing something entirely different. > You don't seems to have a clue of the difference > between analytical truth 5 > 3 and empirical truth > H2O is water. > >> People reject your claims because (1) your words are too vaguely >> defined to be useful, > > Total bullshit. These words SPECIFY EXACTLY > WHAT I MEAN: > > semantic (adjective) > of or relating to meaning in language > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic That says very little without some discussion of what you mean by 'meaning' or 'language'. Both have been construed in a wide variety of different ways. As I said, too vague to be useful. > entail (verb) > to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail 'Necessity' and 'cause' are both terms laden with all sorts of metaphysical baggage which you do not address. Again, too vague to be useful. > [semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail. > "meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence" Combining two vague terms gives you an even vaguer term. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-17 12:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <113d4ql$2oqqb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646778 |
On 16/07/2026 01:10, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-15 14:34, olcott wrote: >> There are 200 petabytes of "atomic facts" that disagree. > > The 200 petabytes of atomic facts that you keep talking about exists > only in your imagination. Utter rubbish. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-16 10:18 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <113a0k8$1peh2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646773 |
On 15/07/2026 23:34, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 2:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>>> His question >>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>>>>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>>> no bearing >>>>>>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>>>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has >>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United >>>>>>>> States. At >>>>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas >>>>>>>> switched >>>>>>>> to another state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>>>>>> to get this >>>>>> >>>>>> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>>> >>>>>> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because >>>>> too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that >>>>> they accept claims without supporting evidence as >>>>> verified facts. >>>>> >>>>> They do this without having any idea what evidence >>>>> is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that >>>>> they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how >>>>> you prove your point. >>>> >>>> Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. >>>> >>>> You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >>>> >>>> The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is >>>> you. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> I am asking people to accept truisms such as >>> this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing >>> with every single point: >>> >>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >> I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism. > > Then you are not bothering to pay 100% perfect > attention to the exact meaning of every word. In particular, he seems to miss the vagueness of "correct". And something should be said about the difference of "evdence" from "sufficient evidence". -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-16 10:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <113a0at$1pbsb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646768 |
On 15/07/2026 22:32, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote: >> On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>> His question >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>>>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>> no bearing >>>>>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>> times >>>>>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas >>>>>>> switched >>>>>>> to another state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>>>>> to get this >>>>> >>>>> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >>>>> >>>>>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>>>>> be correctly accepted as true. >>>>> >>>>> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because >>>> too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that >>>> they accept claims without supporting evidence as >>>> verified facts. >>>> >>>> They do this without having any idea what evidence >>>> is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that >>>> they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how >>>> you prove your point. >>> >>> Apparently you're rather irony-impaired. >>> >>> You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >>> >>> The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> I am asking people to accept truisms such as >> this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing >> with every single point: >> >> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >> be correctly accepted as true. > > I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism. > > And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims > when you give no supporting evidence. That a claim is presented without evidence is OK. Someone whe does not already know the evidence or doens't see the connection can ask. But if some non-evidence is presented instead, one can (and often coes) take that to mean that there is no evidence. And Olcott oten presents non-evidence, usually ad hominem. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 15:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1138n00$1e1eg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646756 |
On 7/15/2026 12:25 PM, olcott wrote: > They are so fucking stupid that > they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how > you prove your point. You mean like this? On 7/15/2026 11:35 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >> That does not prevent an implementation from presenting a lie as a fact. >> > > Yes it fucking does. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-16 10:05 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1139vsn$1p7hj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646756 |
On 15/07/2026 19:25, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His >>>>>>>> question >>>>>>>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>>> SYSTEM >>>>>>>> is correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is best understood by how the single example >>>>>>> is proved correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>>> bearing >>>>>> on the correctness of the whole system. >>>>> >>>>> It is a very important example that does determine >>>>> the fate of our whole Democracy. >>>> >>>> It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>>> been restored where it has collapsed. >>>> >>>> It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>>> to another state. >>>> >>>> But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered. >>> >>> It seems that most people are too fucking stupid >>> to get this >> >> I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople. >> >>> Claims without supporting evidence cannot >>> be correctly accepted as true. >> >> I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims. > > We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because > too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that > they accept claims without supporting evidence as > verified facts. Whether that happens or not, people are unlikely to accept your claims about anyting else. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 10:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11330d7$3mn7p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646507 |
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >> On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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? > >>> No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question >>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM >>> is correct? > >> The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are >> sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including >> medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient >> disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that >> the system is incorrect. > > That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building. > He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth. I > think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely > possible. > Comenius language Once one assumes that the massive task of writing down the complete set of atomic facts of general knowledge has already been accomplished then the table has been built so that truth can just be looked up. > What you have just described is more or less what we have at the moment. > Yes I accept the irony. > >> -- >> Mikko > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web