Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #646250 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-07-16 09:47 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 10:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:24 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 15:26 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:34 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 09:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 08:52 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 11:22 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 16:41 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 19:16 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 15:49 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 10:02 +0000
Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 09:12 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 10:35 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 19:49 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-12 11:23 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:00 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:04 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:19 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 15:34 -0400
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:44 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 13:47 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 11:34 +0300
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:11 -0500
Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:33 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 12:56 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:40 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:05 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-09 14:15 -0600
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 14:04 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 16:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 18:55 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 22:12 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 00:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:46 -0700
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-09 21:14 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 17:02 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 00:14 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-09 15:58 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-10 10:37 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 08:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 08:51 -0600
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 09:57 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 11:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 17:02 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 12:28 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 12:12 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 18:27 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:57 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 13:11 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 14:33 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 14:52 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:17 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:50 -0700
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 11:16 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 12:36 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 12:06 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 13:07 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 14:30 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 14:46 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-10 21:32 +0000
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 16:45 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-10 16:44 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 23:59 -0500
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-11 06:33 -0600
Re: Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 20:08 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 10:45 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 19:52 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-10 10:52 +0300
Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-10 09:05 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-11 11:08 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 20:00 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-12 12:15 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 11:10 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-13 10:08 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-13 11:25 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-13 11:52 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:20 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 11:27 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 13:08 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 12:27 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:57 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:10 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 14:28 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:38 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:51 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:08 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:18 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 22:02 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 15:04 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:11 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 15:32 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 16:13 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:20 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 16:46 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 17:56 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 17:02 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 18:42 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 20:23 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 19:38 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 20:56 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-07-14 20:23 -0600
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 15:31 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-15 20:38 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:44 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 16:53 -0400
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-14 10:51 +0300
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 14:09 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 11:12 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base term olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 11:50 -0500
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:52 +0100
Re: Semantic Entailment --- Principle of compositionality applied to base terms olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:23 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-07-14 16:12 +0100
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-14 12:09 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-15 12:07 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 11:18 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-15 19:21 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-15 15:01 -0500
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:52 +0300
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-16 13:54 +0000
Re: Olcott's big correction to symbolic logic Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-16 09:47 +0300
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 10:04 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <11322ls$3dbh0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646508 |
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote: > On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The entire body of general knowledge expressed in >>>>>>>>>>> language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the >>>>>>>>>>> only inference step allowed is semantic entailment >>>>>>>>>>> specified syntactically. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to >>>>>>>>>> breaking point. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>>>>> "system" >>>>>>>> is incoherent and non existent. >>>>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. >>>>>>>> According to >>>>>>>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>>>>> 200 bytes >>>>>>>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>>>>> stars in >>>>>>>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have >>>>>>>> planets, >>>>>>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>>>>>> complicated as in our own system. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed >>>>>>> out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room >>>>>>> of very high capacity SSDs. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and >>>>>> intellect. >>>>>> More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily >>>>>> meaningless big >>>>>> numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 >>>>>>>> petabytes for >>>>>>>> all this is laughably inadequate. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>>>>>>> laughable. >>>>>> >>>>>> No answer? >>>>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely >>>>>>>>> specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that >>>>>>>>> to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked >>>>>>>>> up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively >>>>>>>>> from elements of this list. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hence the Subject: of this thread. >>>>>> >>>>> I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic >>>>> with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning. >>>> >>>> That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to >>>> call it (or anything) "incoherent mess". >>> >>> Many experts have created whole system of logic to >>> bypass major issues. >> >> Usually it is sufficient to focus on some usual form of the first >> order logic. Simpler systems are less powerful and stronger systems >> are not as well understood. Some systems are just syntactic sugar >> on the ordinary first order logic. >> >> Sometimes it is useful to use second or higher order logic. But there >> is no known complete set of valid inference rules like there is for >> the first order logic. >> >>> No one here sees any of these >>> issues because they just take everything that they >>> learned by rote as the gospel. >> >> They don't see the pot filled with gold at the end of rainbow, either. > > I have always plugged actual English sentences into > propositional variables to see if the inference still > makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the > principle of explosion does not make sense. There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse. > Hypothesize a formal system that can infallibly > determine the truth of any expression of language > pertaining to general knowledge. > > Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that > could have possibly changed the outcome of the 2020 > presidential election? The hypothetical system would say "unlikely byt possible" because that is what the general knowledge is. The general knowledge does not include any definite proof one way or the other but it does include enough to conclude that to perform such fraud without leaving more vedence than is acutally observed is, although not strictly impossible, very difficult. But what would that system answer if one asks "What is the easiest way to cheat significantly in election so that nobody can find any reason to suspect any fraud or even any attempt to fraud?" -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 11:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <113336f$3nl04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646575 |
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote: >> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >> I have always plugged actual English sentences into >> propositional variables to see if the inference still >> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the >> principle of explosion does not make sense. > > There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about > what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse. > (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" Q = "Trump is Satan Himself" If there is nothing semantically relevant about "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese" that semantically entails "Trump is Satan Himself" then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS. >> Hypothesize a formal system that can infallibly >> determine the truth of any expression of language >> pertaining to general knowledge. >> >> Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that >> could have possibly changed the outcome of the 2020 >> presidential election? > > The hypothetical system would say "unlikely byt possible" because > that is what the general knowledge is. The general knowledge does > not include any definite proof one way or the other but it does > include enough to conclude that to perform such fraud without > leaving more vedence than is acutally observed is, although not > strictly impossible, very difficult. > > But what would that system answer if one asks "What is the easiest > way to cheat significantly in election so that nobody can find any > reason to suspect any fraud or even any attempt to fraud?" > 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-13 15:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1133ekg$3rgge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646598 |
On 7/13/2026 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> >>> I have always plugged actual English sentences into >>> propositional variables to see if the inference still >>> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the >>> principle of explosion does not make sense. >> >> There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about >> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse. >> > > (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q > P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" > Q = "Trump is Satan Himself" > > If there is nothing semantically relevant about > "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and > "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese" > that semantically entails > "Trump is Satan Himself" > then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS. There is. The principle of explosion. If you disagree, given that P ∧ ¬P is true, show which step that leads to Q is not truth preserving.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 10:44 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1134pda$7792$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646598 |
On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>> I have always plugged actual English sentences into
>>> propositional variables to see if the inference still
>>> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
>>> principle of explosion does not make sense.
>>
>> There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
>> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
>
> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
> P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
> Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
>
> If there is nothing semantically relevant about
> "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
> "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
> that semantically entails
> "Trump is Satan Himself"
> then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS.
It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all
tautologies of propositional logic are true. One such tautology is
¬P ∨ P ∨ Q.
When using ∧, ∨, and ¬ but no other connectives the most commoly used
inference rule is A, ¬A ∨ B ⊢ B, which is usually recarded as self-
evidently valid. With this rule one can infer from the assumpions P
and ¬P and the tautology ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q
P, ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q ⊢ P ∨ Q
and then
¬P, P ∨ Q ⊢ Q,
If you want argue that Q does not follow from P and ¬P then you must
justify the claim that some of the self-evident truths used above is
false.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-14 13:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1136082$k6ia$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646635 |
On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have always plugged actual English sentences into
>>>> propositional variables to see if the inference still
>>>> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
>>>> principle of explosion does not make sense.
>>>
>>> There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
>>> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
>>
>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
>> P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
>> Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
>>
>> If there is nothing semantically relevant about
>> "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
>> "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
>> that semantically entails
>> "Trump is Satan Himself"
>> then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS.
>
> It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all
> tautologies of propositional logic are true. One such tautology is
> ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q.
>
I am completely and totally tossing every little bit
of ALL of that out on its ass. If P and Q are not
assigned to English statements then they remain utterly
meaningless because {semantic entailment} cannot be
applied to bare propositional variables and every type
of inference besides {semantic entailment} is ruled
stupidly wrong-headed and not allowed.
So in my system all proposition logic is rejected
as stupidly wrong-headed.
> When using ∧, ∨, and ¬ but no other connectives the most commoly used
> inference rule is A, ¬A ∨ B ⊢ B, which is usually recarded as self-
> evidently valid. With this rule one can infer from the assumpions P
> and ¬P and the tautology ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q
> P, ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q ⊢ P ∨ Q
> and then
> ¬P, P ∨ Q ⊢ Q,
>
> If you want argue that Q does not follow from P and ¬P then you must
> justify the claim that some of the self-evident truths used above is
> false.
>
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 11:34 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1137gmv$11jlm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646667 |
On 14/07/2026 21:47, olcott wrote: > On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have always plugged actual English sentences into >>>>> propositional variables to see if the inference still >>>>> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the >>>>> principle of explosion does not make sense. >>>> >>>> There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about >>>> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse. >>> >>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>> P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" >>> Q = "Trump is Satan Himself" >>> >>> If there is nothing semantically relevant about >>> "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and >>> "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese" >>> that semantically entails >>> "Trump is Satan Himself" >>> then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS. >> >> It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all >> tautologies of propositional logic are true. One such tautology is >> ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q. > > I am completely and totally tossing every little bit > of ALL of that out on its ass. I.e., you retract your earlier claims that every tautology is true. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-15 11:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1138bet$1a77k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646737 |
On 7/15/2026 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 14/07/2026 21:47, olcott wrote: >> On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I have always plugged actual English sentences into >>>>>> propositional variables to see if the inference still >>>>>> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the >>>>>> principle of explosion does not make sense. >>>>> >>>>> There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about >>>>> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse. >>>> >>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>>> P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" >>>> Q = "Trump is Satan Himself" >>>> >>>> If there is nothing semantically relevant about >>>> "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and >>>> "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese" >>>> that semantically entails >>>> "Trump is Satan Himself" >>>> then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS. >>> >>> It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all >>> tautologies of propositional logic are true. I am utterly getting rid of propositional logic and replacing the propositional variables with atomic sentences. > One such tautology is >>> ¬P ∨ P ∨ Q. >> >> I am completely and totally tossing every little bit >> of ALL of that out on its ass. > > I.e., you retract your earlier claims that every tautology is true. > tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology -- 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 | 2026-07-16 09:33 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Utterly replacing ALL symbolic logic with inherently correct reasoning |
| Message-ID | <1139u0j$1omno$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646753 |
On 15/07/2026 19:11, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2026 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 14/07/2026 21:47, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have always plugged actual English sentences into >>>>>>> propositional variables to see if the inference still >>>>>>> makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the >>>>>>> principle of explosion does not make sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about >>>>>> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse. >>>>> >>>>> (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q >>>>> P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" >>>>> Q = "Trump is Satan Himself" >>>>> >>>>> If there is nothing semantically relevant about >>>>> "The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and >>>>> "The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese" >>>>> that semantically entails >>>>> "Trump is Satan Himself" >>>>> then (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q FAILS. >>>> >>>> It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all >>>> tautologies of propositional logic are true. > > I am utterly getting rid of propositional logic > and replacing the propositional variables with > atomic sentences. That is the usual meaning or "propositional tautoloty" in contexts other than propositional logic. In those other systems there are other tautologies in addition to the propositional ones. For example, in any logic with equivalence a = b → P(a) ↔ P(b) is a tautology but not a propositional tautology. It is fairly common to assume that all tautologies are true. But propositional tautologies are a special case as it is fairly simple to prove that a simple propositional tautology (say, no more than five or six atomic formulas) is true. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <YO2dnSkmOpkiYdL3nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646402 |
On 07/09/2026 09:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > > Do you understand the details of how this is true > without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? > (a) Yes > (b) No > (c) Succinctness is impossible for me > I disagree, it's a limited account. That's disagreeable. Super-tasks, super-classical reasoning, mathematical independence, these are objective sorts of mental reasonings that reasoners may make revealed their truths. Two different people with each their own subjective then inter-subjective accounts have different bodies of knowledge. This includes disagreements. Then, to make an account of the wider, fuller dialectic of disagreements, simply has that it's trivial that knowledge, wisdom, science, intelligence, are accounts of knowing and knowledge and reasoning and reason. "The sky is not fallen." Shut Up, you're not saying anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eoCdna8Wy8-tms33nZ2dnZfqnPaOrea0@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646411 |
On 07/09/2026 12:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 09:22 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >> >> Do you understand the details of how this is true >> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? >> (a) Yes >> (b) No >> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me >> > > I disagree, it's a limited account. > > That's disagreeable. > > > Super-tasks, super-classical reasoning, mathematical independence, > these are objective sorts of mental reasonings that reasoners may > make revealed their truths. > > Two different people with each their own subjective then > inter-subjective accounts have different bodies of knowledge. > > This includes disagreements. Then, to make an account of > the wider, fuller dialectic of disagreements, simply has > that it's trivial that knowledge, wisdom, science, intelligence, > are accounts of knowing and knowledge and reasoning and reason. > > "The sky is not fallen." > > > Shut Up, you're not saying anything. > > Perhaps it's sad, yet, in my not especially humble opinion, to avoid the smack of hubris, those who can't readily absorb, comprehend, and digest the large amounts of the well-written word: aren't particularly competent to make own grand claims about "the entire body of factual knowledge".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112p2fk$ncul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646415 |
On 7/9/2026 3:40 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 12:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 07/09/2026 09:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> The entire body of knowledge itself can be >>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>> >>> Do you understand the details of how this is true >>> without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity? >>> (a) Yes >>> (b) No >>> (c) Succinctness is impossible for me >>> >> >> I disagree, it's a limited account. >> >> That's disagreeable. >> >> >> Super-tasks, super-classical reasoning, mathematical independence, >> these are objective sorts of mental reasonings that reasoners may >> make revealed their truths. >> >> Two different people with each their own subjective then >> inter-subjective accounts have different bodies of knowledge. >> >> This includes disagreements. Then, to make an account of >> the wider, fuller dialectic of disagreements, simply has >> that it's trivial that knowledge, wisdom, science, intelligence, >> are accounts of knowing and knowledge and reasoning and reason. >> >> "The sky is not fallen." >> >> >> Shut Up, you're not saying anything. >> >> > > Perhaps it's sad, yet, in my not especially humble opinion, > to avoid the smack of hubris, those who can't readily absorb, > comprehend, and digest the large amounts of the well-written word: > aren't particularly competent to make own grand claims about > "the entire body of factual knowledge". > > It never has been the entire body of factual knowledge. "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. becomes implementable on this basis: P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically the language. This is the only inference steps allowed. -- 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 | 2026-07-09 14:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <112ovhp$lpos$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646400 |
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>> >>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>> >>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>> >>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>> theoretic semantics. >>> >>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>> is not used? >>> >>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >> >> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >> steps are allowed. >> > > It is the normal meaning of the base words. I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning as the 'base meaning'. > In English it means that the meaning of the words > of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of a model and you haven't answered this. André >>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >> >> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >> to consumption and energy. >> > > The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that > certain facts are true. Not additional premises > additional axioms. > >>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>> in Prolog. >> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >> > > The entirely body of knowledge itself can be > directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. > > A HOL prover could directly understand this > body of knowledge. > > *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* > the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: > individuals, properties of individuals, relations > between individuals, properties of such relations. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 > -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eoCdnawWy88xm833nZ2dnZfqnPYTMHsp@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646413 |
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>> >>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>> >>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>> is not used? >>>> >>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>> >>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>> steps are allowed. >>> >> >> It is the normal meaning of the base words. > > I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what > their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are > generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning > as the 'base meaning'. > >> In English it means that the meaning of the words >> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. > > That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling > back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as > 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. > > Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of > a model and you haven't answered this. > > André > >>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>> >>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>> to consumption and energy. >>> >> >> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >> additional axioms. >> >>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>> in Prolog. >>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>> >> >> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >> >> A HOL prover could directly understand this >> body of knowledge. >> >> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >> between individuals, properties of such relations. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >> > The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic that very common-sensical and as well with Chrysippus' moods: "very classical logic".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 16:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112p28p$na5v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646414 |
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>> >>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>> is not used? >>>>> >>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>> >>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>> steps are allowed. >>>> >>> >>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >> >> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are >> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning >> as the 'base meaning'. >> >>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >> >> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >> >> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of >> a model and you haven't answered this. >> >> André >> >>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>> >>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>> to consumption and energy. >>>> >>> >>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>> additional axioms. >>> >>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>> in Prolog. >>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>> >>> >>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>> >>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>> body of knowledge. >>> >>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>> >> > > The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" > fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in > accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". > > I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" > is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. > > This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic > that very common-sensical I only care about getting it correctly not all of the many different ways to get it incorrectly. P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically the language. This is the only inference steps allowed. That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. > and as well with Chrysippus' > moods: "very classical logic". > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Xpydnb3ZrNxMkc33nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646418 |
On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>> is not used? >>>>>> >>>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>>> >>>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>>> steps are allowed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >>> >>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are >>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning >>> as the 'base meaning'. >>> >>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >>> >>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >>> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >>> >>> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of >>> a model and you haven't answered this. >>> >>> André >>> >>>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>>> >>>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>>> to consumption and energy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>>> additional axioms. >>>> >>>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>>> in Prolog. >>>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>>> >>>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>>> body of knowledge. >>>> >>>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>> >>> >> >> The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" >> fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in >> accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". >> >> I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" >> is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. >> >> This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic >> that very common-sensical > > I only care about getting it correctly not all of the > many different ways to get it incorrectly. > > P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic > entailment encoded in syntactically the language. > This is the only inference steps allowed. > > That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of > the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. > > >> and as well with Chrysippus' >> moods: "very classical logic". >> > > > > What you don't care still bites. Shut Up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 16:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112p2jo$ncul$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646419 |
On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>> is not used? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>>>> >>>>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>>>> steps are allowed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are >>>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular >>>> meaning >>>> as the 'base meaning'. >>>> >>>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >>>> >>>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >>>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >>>> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >>>> >>>> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of >>>> a model and you haven't answered this. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>>>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>>>> to consumption and energy. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>>>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>>>> additional axioms. >>>>> >>>>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>>>> in Prolog. >>>>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>>>> >>>>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>>>> body of knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>>>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" >>> fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in >>> accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". >>> >>> I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" >>> is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. >>> >>> This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic >>> that very common-sensical >> >> I only care about getting it correctly not all of the >> many different ways to get it incorrectly. >> >> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >> This is the only inference steps allowed. >> >> That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of >> the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. >> >> >>> and as well with Chrysippus' >>> moods: "very classical logic". >>> >> >> >> >> > > What you don't care still bites. > > > Shut Up > > Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend to be a moron? -- 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 | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <NZOcnWfAi4nIzM33nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646421 |
On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>>> is not used? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>>>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>>>>> steps are allowed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>> are >>>>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular >>>>> meaning >>>>> as the 'base meaning'. >>>>> >>>>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>>>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >>>>> >>>>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just >>>>> falling >>>>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >>>>> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >>>>> >>>>> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in >>>>> absence of >>>>> a model and you haven't answered this. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>>>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>>>>> to consumption and energy. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>>>>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>>>>> additional axioms. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>>>>> in Prolog. >>>>>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>>>>> body of knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>>>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>>>>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" >>>> fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in >>>> accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". >>>> >>>> I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" >>>> is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. >>>> >>>> This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic >>>> that very common-sensical >>> >>> I only care about getting it correctly not all of the >>> many different ways to get it incorrectly. >>> >>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>> >>> That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of >>> the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. >>> >>> >>>> and as well with Chrysippus' >>>> moods: "very classical logic". >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> What you don't care still bites. >> >> >> Shut Up >> >> > > Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of > ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend > to be a moron? > Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde, you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-09 22:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112pnv0$svjh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646426 |
On 7/9/2026 8:55 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>>>> is not used? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>>>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>>>>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>>>>>> steps are allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>>> are >>>>>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular >>>>>> meaning >>>>>> as the 'base meaning'. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>>>>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just >>>>>> falling >>>>>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >>>>>> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in >>>>>> absence of >>>>>> a model and you haven't answered this. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>>>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>>>>>> to consumption and energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>>>>>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>>>>>> additional axioms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>>>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>>>>>> in Prolog. >>>>>>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>>>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>>>>>> body of knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>>>>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>>>>>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" >>>>> fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in >>>>> accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". >>>>> >>>>> I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" >>>>> is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. >>>>> >>>>> This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic >>>>> that very common-sensical >>>> >>>> I only care about getting it correctly not all of the >>>> many different ways to get it incorrectly. >>>> >>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>> >>>> That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of >>>> the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. >>>> >>>> >>>>> and as well with Chrysippus' >>>>> moods: "very classical logic". >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What you don't care still bites. >>> >>> >>> Shut Up >>> >>> >> >> Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of >> ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend >> to be a moron? >> > > Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde, > you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief. > > By the words that you use you seem to be a profoundly brilliant genius. Thus when you denigrate my work you seem to be intentionally very hateful. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 00:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112puo0$vti1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646426 |
On 7/9/2026 8:55 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>>>> is not used? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>>>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>>>>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>>>>>> steps are allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>>> are >>>>>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular >>>>>> meaning >>>>>> as the 'base meaning'. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>>>>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just >>>>>> falling >>>>>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >>>>>> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in >>>>>> absence of >>>>>> a model and you haven't answered this. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>>>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>>>>>> to consumption and energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>>>>>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>>>>>> additional axioms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>>>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>>>>>> in Prolog. >>>>>>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>>>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>>>>>> body of knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>>>>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>>>>>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" >>>>> fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in >>>>> accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". >>>>> >>>>> I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" >>>>> is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. >>>>> >>>>> This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic >>>>> that very common-sensical >>>> >>>> I only care about getting it correctly not all of the >>>> many different ways to get it incorrectly. >>>> >>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>> >>>> That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of >>>> the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. >>>> >>>> >>>>> and as well with Chrysippus' >>>>> moods: "very classical logic". >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What you don't care still bites. >>> >>> >>> Shut Up >>> >>> >> >> Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of >> ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend >> to be a moron? >> > > Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde, > you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief. > > An AI looked you up and found all kinds of very important brilliant professional work. I won't cite the details that prove its point for your privacy. It also reviewed your posts over many decades that seem to have the same stream-of-consciousness pattern. Can you write prose? -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-07-10 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <112s08r$1kpbl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646426 |
On 7/9/2026 6:55 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only >>>>>>>>>>> semantic entailment specified syntactically. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Validity and Soundness >>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is corrected to mean >>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>>>> is not used? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>>>>>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That does not answer the question. It does not specify >>>>>>>> what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference >>>>>>>> steps are allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is the normal meaning of the base words. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>>> are >>>>>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular >>>>>> meaning >>>>>> as the 'base meaning'. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In English it means that the meaning of the words >>>>>>> of a sentence proves that certain facts are true. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just >>>>>> falling >>>>>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as >>>>>> 'proves' means very different things in different contexts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in >>>>>> absence of >>>>>> a model and you haven't answered this. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "I drove my car to Walmart" >>>>>>>>> entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not without additional premises that relate driving and car >>>>>>>> to consumption and energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that >>>>>>> certain facts are true. Not additional premises >>>>>>> additional axioms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It turns out that all HOL and type theory can be >>>>>>>>> encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed >>>>>>>>> in Prolog. >>>>>>>> Or C or any language that supports long character strings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The entirely body of knowledge itself can be >>>>>>> directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A HOL prover could directly understand this >>>>>>> body of knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog* >>>>>>> the objects of thought are divided into types, namely: >>>>>>> individuals, properties of individuals, relations >>>>>>> between individuals, properties of such relations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity" >>>>> fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in >>>>> accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication". >>>>> >>>>> I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication" >>>>> is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all. >>>>> >>>>> This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic >>>>> that very common-sensical >>>> >>>> I only care about getting it correctly not all of the >>>> many different ways to get it incorrectly. >>>> >>>> P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language. >>>> This is the only inference steps allowed. >>>> >>>> That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of >>>> the ways to get reasoning incorrectly. >>>> >>>> >>>>> and as well with Chrysippus' >>>>> moods: "very classical logic". >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What you don't care still bites. >>> >>> >>> Shut Up >>> >>> >> >> Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of >> ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend >> to be a moron? >> > > Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde, > you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief. > > Try not to cast your pearls before the swine akin to the damn Olcott.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web