Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #641072 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 12 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.
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5s4j$1if1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641153 |
On 11/25/2025 9:19 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-26, Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote:
>> Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad.
>
> Not really. He plonked someone this Oct 27, a Monday. I publicly
> predicted he'd reply to that person by Halowe'en. The prediction came
> true Tuesday, the 28th.
>
> He only has a "mental kill file", to borrow from Kenny McCormack of
> comp.unix.shell.
>
Thunderbird
Tools
Message filters
Has four people added recently.
Chris, dbush, flibble and damon
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10g64kh$3uva$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641153 |
On 26/11/2025 03:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >> Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad. > > Not really. He plonked someone this Oct 27, a Monday. I publicly > predicted he'd reply to that person by Halowe'en. The prediction came > true Tuesday, the 28th. > > He only has a "mental kill file", to borrow from Kenny McCormack of > comp.unix.shell. I have to sympathise a little. Before switching to Thunderbird, I kept a virtual killfile for *years*. But mine did have one key difference: I could mostly remember who was in it. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8qai$14eiv$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641194 |
On 11/25/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 26/11/2025 03:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, Python <python@cccp.invalid> wrote: >>> Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad. >> >> Not really. He plonked someone this Oct 27, a Monday. I publicly >> predicted he'd reply to that person by Halowe'en. The prediction came >> true Tuesday, the 28th. >> >> He only has a "mental kill file", to borrow from Kenny McCormack of >> comp.unix.shell. > > I have to sympathise a little. Before switching to Thunderbird, I kept a > virtual killfile for *years*. > > But mine did have one key difference: I could mostly remember who was in > it. > At least you are smart. :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5rob$1c37$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641145 |
On 11/25/2025 9:08 PM, Python wrote: > Le 26/11/2025 à 04:06, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>> >>>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>>> >>>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>>> >>>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>> >>> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >>> made your mark and put it behind you? >>> >> >> Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. > > Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad. > > I do that only to people that prove that they are trolls and nothing but trolls. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8qcp$14eiv$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641156 |
On 11/25/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:08 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 26/11/2025 à 04:06, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>>>> >>>>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>>>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>>> >>>> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >>>> made your mark and put it behind you? >>>> >>> >>> Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. >> >> Plonking everyone is strictly equivalent to be plonked by everyone. Sad. >> >> > > I do that only to people that prove that they > are trolls and nothing but trolls. > > Pot kettle? You think its okay to compare others to hitler and shit? WTF is wrong with you man! Fuck. ;^o God damn it. Did you get arrested or not? Odd things. When do you halt?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g5r05$3u8av$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641144 |
On 11/25/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> >>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>> >>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>> >>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >> >> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >> made your mark and put it behind you? >> > > Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. > bruh, ur not going convince anyone by blocking everyone -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5rkh$1c37$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641146 |
On 11/25/2025 9:08 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/25/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>> >>>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>>> >>>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>>> >>>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>> >>> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >>> made your mark and put it behind you? >>> >> >> Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. >> > > bruh, ur not going convince anyone by blocking everyone > I will avoid wasting time with people that prove they are trolls and nothing but trolls. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g5rq6$3u8av$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641154 |
On 11/25/25 7:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:08 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 11/25/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>>>> >>>>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>>>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>>> >>>> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >>>> made your mark and put it behind you? >>>> >>> >>> Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. >>> >> >> bruh, ur not going convince anyone by blocking everyone >> > > I will avoid wasting time with people that > prove they are trolls and nothing but trolls. > it really is just trolls all the way down buddy ... > learning to counter-troll is ur only option > > #god -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic semantic proofs like halting analysis please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10g5s8o$1if1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641157 |
On 11/25/2025 9:22 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/25/25 7:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 9:08 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/25/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>>>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>>>>> >>>>>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>>>>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>>>> >>>>> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >>>>> made your mark and put it behind you? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. >>>> >>> >>> bruh, ur not going convince anyone by blocking everyone >>> >> >> I will avoid wasting time with people that >> prove they are trolls and nothing but trolls. >> > > it really is just trolls all the way down buddy ... > > > learning to counter-troll is ur only option > > > > #god > Python has not yet proved to be a troll Ben was never a troll, André is not a troll. Kaz never used to be a Troll. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8qg4$14eiv$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641157 |
On 11/25/2025 7:22 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 11/25/25 7:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/25/2025 9:08 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 11/25/25 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>>>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>>>>> >>>>>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>>>>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >>>>> >>>>> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >>>>> made your mark and put it behind you? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. >>>> >>> >>> bruh, ur not going convince anyone by blocking everyone >>> >> >> I will avoid wasting time with people that >> prove they are trolls and nothing but trolls. >> > > it really is just trolls all the way down buddy ... they looked like turtles to me... ;^) lol. > > > learning to counter-troll is ur only option > > > > #god >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8q7j$14eiv$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641144 |
On 11/25/2025 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 9:02 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/25/2025 8:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> *Here is a concrete example* >>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x) >>>> >>>> That's a stupid thing to stipulate; Bachelor(x) could refer to a >>>> suite with zero bedrooms. >>>> >>>> Is this how you plan to fix the accuracy issues in LLMs? >>> >>> You fail to understand that I just refuted the most famous >>> paper on the analytic / synthetic distinction. >> >> Refuted the paper, like, as in, you were sitting on the crapper, >> made your mark and put it behind you? >> > > Maybe it is time that I *plonk* you too. > Do you know how to read? You crapper flush is coming up. Tick tock. Almost December...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251125174341.763@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #641103 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>> their syntax from their semantics ... >> >> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is fixed! > > Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your > current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar > because it encodes natural language semantics as pure > syntax. That's amazing; I would have thought that it's called Montague Grammar because someone named Richard Montague came up with it. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ratVQ.42368$C8i7.28112@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #641090 |
On 11/25/25 6:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/25/2025 5:14 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>> its return, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and >>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole >>>>>>>>>>> thing about >>>>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style >>>>>>>> logical incompleteness. >>>>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal >>>>>>>> system that is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be >>>>>>>> listed by a program), >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>>>>> prove. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick >>>>>>>> can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, >>>>>>>> ontology, semantic layers, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to >>>>>>>> encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of >>>>>>>> predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, >>>>>>>> some of which contradict others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a >>>>>>>> single formal theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that >>>>>>>> would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original >>>>>>>> theorem is wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>>>> because: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is true. >>>>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which >>>>>> every meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>>>> >>>>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>>>> >>>>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>>>> >>>>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>>>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>>>> >>>>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics >>>>>> in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” >>>>>> which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into >>>>>> syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot >>>>>> describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary >>>>>> notion of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either violates >>>>>> Gödel or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it cannot >>>>>> simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a >>>>>> meaningful notion of truth. >>>> >>>> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >>>> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >>>> anything interesting: >>> >>> It literally has the entire body of general knowledge >>> including every book or academic paper every published. >>> >>>> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a >>>> politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in >>>> through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t >>>> prove, whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not >>>> knowledge!” and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself >>>> on the back, and calls the place clean; >>> >>> Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. >>> General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be >>> proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general >>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>> >>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >>> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >>> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >>> exist. >>> >>>> unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as >>>> declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a >>>> dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as >>>> “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated >>>> misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal >>>> system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >>>> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby >>>> proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it >>>> will fit anywhere. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >>> >>> That above means that the Liar Paradox contains >>> a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >>> sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck >>> in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. >>> >>> In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox >>> in way that is widely accepted as correct. >> >> THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT >> “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer >> Olcott. >> >> The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified >> Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history >> to achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of >> banning all facts that don’t fit. >> >> Under the new legislation, Truth(x) = Provable(x) by constitutional >> decree. Citizens are reminded that any statement not provable within >> TOUFS™’ 14 axioms (“The Axioms of Perfect Obviousness,” revised >> weekly) will henceforth be classified as Ungovernable Nonsense and >> gently escorted outside the Ministry's cognitive perimeter. >> >> “We have finally solved Gödel,” announced Minister Olcott at a >> celebratory press event held in Axiom Chamber #3. “Gödel keeps sending >> us those confusing, unprovable statements. We now return them marked >> ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem solved.” >> >> When asked whether TOUFS™ could express arithmetic, the Minister >> smiled warmly and replied: >> “We discovered arithmetic is dangerously expressive, so we downgraded >> it to a recreational activity.” >> >> Early adopters have praised the system’s clarity: >> >> Mathematicians report unprecedented peace of mind, since all difficult >> theorems have now been reclassified as “Not Real.” >> >> Philosophers have been redirected to the Ministry’s Silence Department >> for failing to produce provable questions. >> >> Physicists are adjusting to the new mandate requiring all particles to >> comply with Axiom 12 (“Everything Behaves Nicely”). >> >> A slight controversy arose when an inquisitive intern asked whether >> the statement “Everything in the system is provable” is itself >> provable. The Ministry immediately reassigned the intern to the >> Department of Semantic Recycling, where he is undergoing intensive >> training in Non-Issues. >> >> The Ministry concludes with a reassuring message to all citizens: >> >> “TOUFS™ guarantees a future where no truth will ever escape unproven, >> because unproven truths will no longer exist.” >> >> The press conference ended with the ceremonial shredding of Gödel’s >> incompleteness paper and the unveiling of a large poster reading: >> >> “IGNORANCE IS INCONSISTENCY-FREE.” > > > Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide > their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When > the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating > any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot > exist. And where does he do that? IT seems your concepts only work in system where meaning has been devoided of its meaning. All Godel needs is the ability to represent numbers and to let said numbers represent concepts. I guess your logic requires concepts to not be able to be enumerated > > Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic > facts is airtight. Nope, not if it has enough "facts" to generate the natural number system. Of course, your problem is such generation requires actually knowing enough logic to build that system. > > *I have thought this over again and again for a decade* > Try and find an actual error. > Because you are just too stupid. If you actually had something, you could point to the actual specific step in Godel's proof where he makes the error, but of course most of the proof is using concepts that are beyond your kindergarten level of understanding of logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g625n$2pqn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641088 |
On 11/25/2025 3:14 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches >>>>>>>>>>>> its return, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and >>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole >>>>>>>>>> thing about >>>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>>>> that is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be >>>>>>> listed by a program), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>>>> prove. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick >>>>>>> can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, >>>>>>> ontology, semantic layers, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to >>>>>>> encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of >>>>>>> predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, >>>>>>> some of which contradict others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>>>> formal theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that >>>>>>> would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original >>>>>>> theorem is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>>> because: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is true. >>>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>>>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>>> >>>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>>> >>>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>>> >>>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>>> >>>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics >>>>> in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” >>>>> which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into >>>>> syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot >>>>> describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion >>>>> of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel >>>>> or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it cannot >>>>> simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful >>>>> notion of truth. >>> >>> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >>> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >>> anything interesting: >> >> It literally has the entire body of general knowledge >> including every book or academic paper every published. >> >>> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a >>> politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in >>> through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t prove, >>> whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not knowledge!” >>> and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on the back, >>> and calls the place clean; >> >> Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. >> General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be >> proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general >> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >> >> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >> exist. >> >>> unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as >>> declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a >>> dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as >>> “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated >>> misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal >>> system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >>> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby >>> proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will >>> fit anywhere. >>> >>> >> >> This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox >> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >> LP = not(true(LP)). >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >> false. >> >> That above means that the Liar Paradox contains >> a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >> sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck >> in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. >> >> In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox >> in way that is widely accepted as correct. > > THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT > “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer Olcott. > > The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified > Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history to > achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of banning > all facts that don’t fit. [...] For some damn reason this reminds me of Lord Dimwit Flathead from Zork. Loved playing those games... https://zork.fandom.com/wiki/Dimwit_Flathead
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10g7jna$mg7m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641088 |
On 25/11/2025 23:14, Python wrote: > ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem solved. Delete that! -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10g7knf$mg7m$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641231 |
On 26/11/2025 19:16, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 25/11/2025 23:14, Python wrote: > >> ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem solved. > > Delete that! That was pedagogical. "Delete that!" is not a proposition, it is neither true, false, Provable, nor Derivable. It's not even reducible to "At [some instant code] I order you to delete that with exclamation." It /is/ of the incorrect form and is not contained in the body of human knowledge. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g8im7$1265r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641233 |
On 11/26/2025 11:34 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 26/11/2025 19:16, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 25/11/2025 23:14, Python wrote: >> >>> ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem solved. >> >> Delete that! > > That was pedagogical. "Delete that!" is not a proposition, it is neither > true, false, Provable, nor Derivable. It's not even reducible to "At > [some instant code] I order you to delete that with exclamation." The system says okay and deletes everything. It says got that. > > It /is/ of the incorrect form and is not contained in the body of human > knowledge. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10g56vd$3q23k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641081 |
On 11/25/2025 1:12 PM, Python wrote: > Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its >>>>>>>>>> return, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>> >>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>> incompleteness. >>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>> >>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>> >>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>> that is: >>>>> >>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed >>>>> by a program), >>>>> >>>>> Consistent, >>>>> >>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>> >>>>> Then: >>>>> >>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>> prove. >>>>> >>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can >>>>> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>> >>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>> conditions). >>>>> >>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology, >>>>> semantic layers, etc. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>> >>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode >>>>> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules, >>>>> and microtheories. But: >>>>> >>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>> >>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some >>>>> of which contradict others. >>>>> >>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>> >>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>> >>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>> formal theory. >>>>> >>>>> Conclusion: >>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would >>>>> make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>> >>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>> halting problem. >>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>> >>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>> >>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>> internally. >>>>> >>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>> failure. >>>>> >>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>> >>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>> >>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem >>>>> is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>> >>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>> because: >>>>> >>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that >>>>> >>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is true. >>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>> >>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>> that can be expressed in language. >>> >>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >> >> In weaker systems this will remain true. >> >> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >> >> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >> >> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >> >>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics in >>> which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” which >>> merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into syntactic >>> provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot describe its own >>> correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion of truth at all—in >>> short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel or empties “truth” of >>> its usual meaning, and so it cannot simultaneously claim >>> completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful notion of truth. > > Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with > True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it > anything interesting: the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts > sweating like a politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel > sneaks in through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t > prove, whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not > knowledge!” and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on > the back, and calls the place clean; unfortunately, this is not so much > solving incompleteness as declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a > bit like running a dictatorship where the official state newspaper > defines “truth” as “things we printed,” and then brags about having > eliminated misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only > formal system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively > evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby proving, > once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will fit anywhere. > > Olkook might have jumped the shark on this one? He might think he is god... Sigh... Humm. I bet he thinks his knowledge base even contains the methods of alien races (from our galaxy and/or others) thousands of times more intelligent that us here on this little blue speck called Earth. Btw I heard something about a PO getting arrested for something (not sure if its the same one), but he apparently claimed to be god. So, it might be the same one? I wonder if PO can confirm this for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10g7k2u$mg7m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641083 |
On 25/11/2025 21:27, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > I bet he thinks his knowledge base even contains > the methods of alien races Not the methods, but the knowledge. A system whose formation rules generate all statements contains those statements. You know, shakespeare, infinite monkeys, etc... He didn't say they were its axioms! No one ever said Olcott wasn't a superb troll. He posts his big claims with precision and the most delicate, patient, noiseless irony. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10g7l3u$mhag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641232 |
On 11/26/2025 2:23 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 25/11/2025 21:27, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> I bet he thinks his knowledge base even contains >> the methods of alien races > > Not the methods, but the knowledge. A system whose formation rules > generate all statements contains those statements. You know, > shakespeare, infinite monkeys, etc... > > He didn't say they were its axioms! > > No one ever said Olcott wasn't a superb troll. He posts his big claims > with precision and the most delicate, patient, noiseless irony. > > I don't think he's a troll. He really believes his own nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web