Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #645432 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-06-23 09:26 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 346 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-17 16:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 14:35 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-19 10:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 07:46 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-19 20:28 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 15:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-19 21:05 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 16:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 18:30 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 21:35 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 23:04 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 21:40 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 11:05 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 14:02 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:30 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 15:03 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:03 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:02 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:57 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:16 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 08:13 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:01 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:28 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:39 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:43 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:17 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 07:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:16 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 12:48 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:54 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 08:50 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 15:34 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:43 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:38 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 14:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:39 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 16:36 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:32 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:46 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:49 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:47 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:02 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:19 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:34 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 21:27 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 21:16 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:05 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-20 10:50 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:41 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:17 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:41 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:09 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 08:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 08:58 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:34 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:05 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:27 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:36 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:04 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-19 22:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:18 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:23 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:44 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:45 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:20 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:45 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 09:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 11:57 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:13 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:21 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 10:19 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 13:36 -0400
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 12:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 19:48 +0000
Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:19 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 16:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:34 -0400
Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:11 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 19:26 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:29 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:06 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:28 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:32 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:38 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 20:48 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 21:51 -0400
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:01 -0500
Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 16:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-20 21:43 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-20 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 13:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 12:53 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-21 20:04 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 15:42 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 15:08 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-21 18:02 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 20:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 09:49 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 07:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:06 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:00 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 15:26 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:21 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:14 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:10 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:20 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:57 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 09:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:25 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:42 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:53 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:02 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-26 12:14 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 13:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:07 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:17 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 14:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 15:55 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 18:08 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 17:58 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 19:48 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 20:39 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:51 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 08:34 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:05 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:37 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:24 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 22:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:25 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:17 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:29 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:39 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:01 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:16 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:23 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:40 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:54 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:04 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:11 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:22 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:30 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:36 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:52 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:59 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 16:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:50 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:11 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:15 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:21 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 17:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:53 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:27 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 19:33 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 18:59 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 21:13 -0400
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 20:33 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:31 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-29 09:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 08:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 10:48 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 08:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:09 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-30 11:43 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:22 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-01 10:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:13 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-02 09:44 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 09:45 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 08:16 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 11:47 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 11:41 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:23 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 10:34 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:17 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 13:36 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 18:14 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:02 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 09:58 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:24 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 13:13 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 12:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:29 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-03 12:39 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-03 11:43 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-04 10:22 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 14:07 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-04 11:38 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-07-04 17:42 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-06 10:10 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-06 08:51 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-08 10:35 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-08 22:12 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:51 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:38 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:40 -0600
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:46 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 11:32 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 12:47 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:30 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:23 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 09:44 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:22 +0000
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:36 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 14:21 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:15 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:31 -0500
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:49 +0300
Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-07-09 10:55 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:26 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-21 13:23 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-21 19:00 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-22 10:40 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 10:12 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 15:48 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 11:23 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 18:42 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 19:50 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:06 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-06-22 20:38 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 16:55 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:00 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 23:14 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:31 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:22 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 11:54 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:32 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 10:58 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:24 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 13:20 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-24 13:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 16:33 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 18:28 -0600
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-25 10:29 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-25 11:16 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-26 09:45 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 08:15 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-27 11:13 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 07:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 10:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-28 12:51 +0300
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 06:23 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 09:53 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 10:36 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:47 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 22:01 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 05:13 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 09:59 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 10:00 -0700
DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:57 -0500
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:31 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:37 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 13:16 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 18:59 -0700
Re: DAG of all general knowledge that can be expressed in Language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:51 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-06-23 21:04 +0000
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- cycles in directed graphs Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 19:25 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:16 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 21:28 -0700
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-22 15:08 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-23 09:17 -0500
Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-06-23 09:26 +0300
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 20:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <1117deq$favl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645533 |
On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the following >>>>>>> statement is true or false? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore that >>>>> disjunction introduction is correct. >>>> >>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>> >>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>> >>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> That has been agreed. >>> >>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or false, and >>> how do you come to that conclusion? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>> -------------------------------------- >> >> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >> >> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >> >> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >> > > I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the following > statement is true or false, and how do you come to that conclusion? > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - The moon is made of green cheese. > -------------------------------------- > P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. I am not eliminating disjunction. I eliminate disjunction introduction into a chain of reasoning from out of nowhere. Parry’s Analytic Implication: Developed by William Parry does this same thing. Have you ever heard of relevance logic? They kept Disjunction introduction and got rid of Disjunctive syllogism -- 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 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 | 2026-06-20 21:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <1117eos$fin3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645534 |
On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the following >>>>>>>> statement is true or false? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore that >>>>>> disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>> >>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>> >>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>> >>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> That has been agreed. >>>> >>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or false, and >>>> how do you come to that conclusion? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>> >>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>> >>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>> >>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>> >> >> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the following >> statement is true or false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - The moon is made of green cheese. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." > Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." > We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. > We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. > Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition "at least one of the following" is met. Next step: Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do you come to that conclusion? -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 20:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <1117ev9$fkst$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645535 |
On 6/20/2026 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the following >>>>>>>>> statement is true or false? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore that >>>>>>> disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>>> >>>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>>> >>>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> That has been agreed. >>>>> >>>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or false, >>>>> and how do you come to that conclusion? >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>>> >>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>> >>>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>>> >>> >>> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the following >>> statement is true or false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." >> Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." >> We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. >> We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. >> Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. > > > So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition "at > least one of the following" is met. > > Next step: > > Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do you > come to that conclusion? > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. > -------------------------------------- > Clearly just head games. GFO with these head games -- 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 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 | 2026-06-20 21:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <1117fb9$fin3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645536 |
On 6/20/2026 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the following >>>>>>>>>> statement is true or false? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore that >>>>>>>> disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>>>> >>>>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> That has been agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or false, >>>>>> and how do you come to that conclusion? >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>>>> >>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>>> >>>>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>>>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>>>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the >>>> following statement is true or false, and how do you come to that >>>> conclusion? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." >>> Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." >>> We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. >>> We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. >>> Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. >> >> >> So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition "at >> least one of the following" is met. >> >> Next step: >> >> Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do >> you come to that conclusion? >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > Clearly just head games. GFO with these head games > I promise you I am going somewhere with this, and this is no head game. But we must take things one small step at a time. So I'll ask again: Do you believe the following natural language statement is true or false, and how do you come to that conclusion? -------------------------------------- At least one of the following statements is true: - Earth is the third planet from the sun. - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. --------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 20:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <1117ftu$fr9f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645537 |
On 6/20/2026 8:38 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the >>>>>>>>>>> following statement is true or false? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore >>>>>>>>> that disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That has been agreed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or false, >>>>>>> and how do you come to that conclusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>>>> >>>>>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>>>>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>>>>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the >>>>> following statement is true or false, and how do you come to that >>>>> conclusion? >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>>> P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." >>>> Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." >>>> We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. >>>> We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. >>>> Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. >>> >>> >>> So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition "at >>> least one of the following" is met. >>> >>> Next step: >>> >>> Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do >>> you come to that conclusion? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> Clearly just head games. GFO with these head games >> > > I promise you I am going somewhere with this, and this is no head game. > But we must take things one small step at a time. > > So I'll ask again: > > Do you believe the following natural language statement is true or > false, and how do you come to that conclusion? > > -------------------------------------- > At least one of the following statements is true: > - Earth is the third planet from the sun. > - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. > -------------------------------------- > Go fuck off. -- 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 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 | 2026-06-20 21:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <1117g3h$fin3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645538 |
On 6/20/2026 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 8:38 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the >>>>>>>>>>>> following statement is true or false? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore >>>>>>>>>> that disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>>>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>>>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>>>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That has been agreed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or false, >>>>>>>> and how do you come to that conclusion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>>>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>>>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>>>>>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>>>>>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the >>>>>> following statement is true or false, and how do you come to that >>>>>> conclusion? >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." >>>>> Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." >>>>> We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. >>>>> We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. >>>>> Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition >>>> "at least one of the following" is met. >>>> >>>> Next step: >>>> >>>> Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do >>>> you come to that conclusion? >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> Clearly just head games. GFO with these head games >>> >> >> I promise you I am going somewhere with this, and this is no head >> game. But we must take things one small step at a time. >> >> So I'll ask again: >> >> Do you believe the following natural language statement is true or >> false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >> >> -------------------------------------- >> At least one of the following statements is true: >> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >> -------------------------------------- >> > > Go fuck off. > In other words, you know this line of questioning will prove you wrong and you can't handle it. This constitutes your admission that Disjunction introduction is valid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 12:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <111k10s$1jbj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645539 |
On 6/20/2026 6:51 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: [...] >> Go fuck off. >> > > In other words, you know this line of questioning will prove you wrong > and you can't handle it. > > This constitutes your admission that Disjunction introduction is valid. olcott is a special piece of shit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-25 16:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <111k4vs$2ok9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645539 |
On 6/20/2026 8:51 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 8:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the >>>>>>>>>>>>> following statement is true or false? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> that disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>>>>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>>>>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>>>>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That has been agreed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or >>>>>>>>> false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>>>>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>>>>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>>>>>>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>>>>>>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the >>>>>>> following statement is true or false, and how do you come to that >>>>>>> conclusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." >>>>>> Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." >>>>>> We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. >>>>>> We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. >>>>>> Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition >>>>> "at least one of the following" is met. >>>>> >>>>> Next step: >>>>> >>>>> Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do >>>>> you come to that conclusion? >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>>> Clearly just head games. GFO with these head games >>>> >>> >>> I promise you I am going somewhere with this, and this is no head >>> game. But we must take things one small step at a time. >>> >>> So I'll ask again: >>> >>> Do you believe the following natural language statement is true or >>> false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> Go fuck off. >> > > In other words, you know this line of questioning will prove you wrong > and you can't handle it. > > This constitutes your admission that Disjunction introduction is valid. William T. Parry, Entailment Logics gets rid of Disjunction introduction -- 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 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 | 2026-06-25 16:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Disjunction introduction --- new premise from out of no where |
| Message-ID | <111k56k$2sct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645539 |
On 6/20/2026 8:51 PM, dbush wrote: > On 6/20/2026 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 8:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 9:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:29 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 8:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 7:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 6:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 4:19 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts of empirical general knowledge such as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "cats are animals". >>>>>>>>>>>>> And given that this statement is an atomic fact: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think can be concluded about whether the >>>>>>>>>>>>> following statement is true or false? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to keep asking me if I know >>>>>>>>>>>> the propositional truth table for "or" I will >>>>>>>>>>>> block you for disrespect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you agree that "or" is valid, and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> that disjunction introduction is correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OK great that is not at all a head game. >>>>>>>>>> Getting rid of disjunction introduction >>>>>>>>>> is not the same thing as getting rid of >>>>>>>>>> "∨" disjunctions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then let's take this step-by-step. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Step 1: establish a true statement: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That has been agreed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Step 2: do you believe the following statement is true or >>>>>>>>> false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK so going step by step is fine with me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) P ∧ ¬P // Premise >>>>>>>> 2) P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>>> 3) ¬P // Conjunction elimination >>>>>>>> 4) P ∨ Q // Disjunction introduction >>>>>>>> 5) Q // Disjunctive syllogism >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We ended up with Q only because we were allowed >>>>>>>> to insert Q from out of nowhere in the inference >>>>>>>> chain that started with P ∧ ¬P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't ask about those steps. I asked if you believe the >>>>>>> following statement is true or false, and how do you come to that >>>>>>> conclusion? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>>>> - The moon is made of green cheese. >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> P = "Earth is the third planet from the sun." >>>>>> Q = "The moon is made of green cheese." >>>>>> We determine that P is true on the basis empirical facts. >>>>>> We determine that Q is false on the basis empirical facts. >>>>>> Is P ∨ Q true? Yes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you agree that because P is true and Q is false, the condition >>>>> "at least one of the following" is met. >>>>> >>>>> Next step: >>>>> >>>>> Do you believe the following statement is true or false, and how do >>>>> you come to that conclusion? >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>>>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>>>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>>> Clearly just head games. GFO with these head games >>>> >>> >>> I promise you I am going somewhere with this, and this is no head >>> game. But we must take things one small step at a time. >>> >>> So I'll ask again: >>> >>> Do you believe the following natural language statement is true or >>> false, and how do you come to that conclusion? >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> At least one of the following statements is true: >>> - Earth is the third planet from the sun. >>> - There is a Walmart bag at the deepest point of the Mariana Trench. >>> -------------------------------------- >>> >> >> Go fuck off. >> > > In other words, you know this line of questioning will prove you wrong > and you can't handle it. > > This constitutes your admission that Disjunction introduction is valid. The main and distinctive feature of PAI (and of the many systems of analytic implication belonging to its ilk) is the rejection of the classically valid principle of Addition, sometimes also referred to as Disjunction Introduction. In other words, the principle leading from a formula ϕ to a disjunction of the form ϕ ∨ ψ, where ψ is an arbitrary formula. Parry blamed on this principle the derivability of the paradoxes of strict implication. https://philarchive.org/archive/SZMASL -- 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 knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 21:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <11171hh$2r09$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645521 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > > [ .... ] > >> I only skimmed that digression from this point: > >> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded > >> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base" > >> for Proof Theoretic Semantics. > > So, in your system, all facts are axioms? > Since you are not a philosopher you have no idea what > a nightmare the analytic/synthetic distinction is. How about answering my question? In your system are all facts axioms, or are they not? > By converting all of the atomic facts of empirical > general knowledge into axioms the whole 75 year old > nightmare is ended in this single sentence. Unlikely. I suggest to you yet again, converting all "atomic facts" (whatever they may be) to axioms will not result in a satisfactory or useful system. > > That would appear to make it not a very useful system, since there is > > nothing left to prove. Also it is difficult, if even possible in > > general, to determine whether some assertion is an axiom or not. > > Your "axioms" are not axioms in the normal sense of the word; they're > > an encyclopaedia. > > Or is a fact different from an "empirical fact" in some way? > Atomic facts of general knowledge includes atomic > facts of empirical general knowledge such as > "cats are animals". Why do you bother responding to me? You don't answer my points and questions. I wasn't talking about "atomic facts", I was talking about "empirical facts", and what that term means to you. OK, let's run now with your "atomic facts". What is an "atomic fact" in your system? You've given a (non-interesting) example, but no definition. What properties would a fact need to be regarded as "non-atomic"? That it could somehow be split into two or more distict facts, or what? Would Gödel's Theorem be regarded as an "atomic fact" or a "non-atomic fact"? And why? It must be one or the other. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 17:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <111759q$deeb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645528 |
On 6/20/2026 4:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>> I only skimmed that digression from this point: >>>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded >>>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base" >>>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics. > >>> So, in your system, all facts are axioms? > >> Since you are not a philosopher you have no idea what >> a nightmare the analytic/synthetic distinction is. > > How about answering my question? In your system are all facts axioms, or > are they not? > >> By converting all of the atomic facts of empirical >> general knowledge into axioms the whole 75 year old >> nightmare is ended in this single sentence. > > Unlikely. I suggest to you yet again, converting all "atomic facts" > (whatever they may be) to axioms will not result in a satisfactory or > useful system. > It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge by providing grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base. I just found the term: "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. Prior to yesterday I had no idea how close PTS already is to my own system. -- 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 knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 11:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <1118hp0$2u40$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645530 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/2026 4:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [ .... ] > >>>> I only skimmed that digression from this point: > >>>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded > >>>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base" > >>>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics. > >>> So, in your system, all facts are axioms? > >> Since you are not a philosopher you have no idea what > >> a nightmare the analytic/synthetic distinction is. > > How about answering my question? In your system are all facts > > axioms, or are they not? Still no answer? > >> By converting all of the atomic facts of empirical > >> general knowledge into axioms the whole 75 year old > >> nightmare is ended in this single sentence. > > Unlikely. I suggest to you yet again, converting all "atomic facts" > > (whatever they may be) to axioms will not result in a satisfactory or > > useful system. > It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge by > providing grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base. Vacuously so. If all facts are axioms, there is nothing left to prove. Of course, in this setup, determining if an assertion is an axiom or not is an insoluble problem. Maybe you mean something else by "atomic fact". You're clearly unable or unwilling to define that term. Obviously you either don't understand it, or you need to keep it vague to avoid being pinned down by logic and reality. > I just found the term: > "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of understanding them. > Prior to yesterday I had no idea how close PTS already > is to my own system. You're clueless about PTS. You can't explain it, you don't understand it. You just like trying to flummox others by throwing around big words and recondite phrases. When asked to explain what they mean, you just go all vague. "Your own system" is vacuous nonsense. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <1119bav$10b1s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645549 |
On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 4:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> [ .... ] > >>>>>> I only skimmed that digression from this point: >>>>>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded >>>>>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base" >>>>>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics. > >>>>> So, in your system, all facts are axioms? > >>>> Since you are not a philosopher you have no idea what >>>> a nightmare the analytic/synthetic distinction is. > >>> How about answering my question? In your system are all facts >>> axioms, or are they not? > > Still no answer? > >>>> By converting all of the atomic facts of empirical >>>> general knowledge into axioms the whole 75 year old >>>> nightmare is ended in this single sentence. > >>> Unlikely. I suggest to you yet again, converting all "atomic facts" >>> (whatever they may be) to axioms will not result in a satisfactory or >>> useful system. > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge by >> providing grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base. > > Vacuously so. If all facts are axioms, there is nothing left to prove. > Of course, in this setup, determining if an assertion is an axiom or not > is an insoluble problem. > > Maybe you mean something else by "atomic fact". You're clearly unable or > unwilling to define that term. Obviously you either don't understand it, > or you need to keep it vague to avoid being pinned down by logic and > reality. > >> I just found the term: >> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. > > You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of > understanding them. > The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness fails. If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >> Prior to yesterday I had no idea how close PTS already >> is to my own system. > > You're clueless about PTS. You can't explain it, you don't understand > it. You just like trying to flummox others by throwing around big words > and recondite phrases. When asked to explain what they mean, you just go > all vague. "Your own system" is vacuous nonsense. > If you know essentially nothing about PTS then when I explain things using the terminology of PTS you will not understand. I need to go to university today to pick up a key PTS paper. >> -- >> Copyright 2026 Olcott > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of 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 | phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 12:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <n9qq97Fi2hlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #645553 |
olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 4:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>> I only skimmed that digression from this point: >>>>>>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded >>>>>>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base" >>>>>>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics. >> >>>>>> So, in your system, all facts are axioms? >> >>>>> Since you are not a philosopher you have no idea what >>>>> a nightmare the analytic/synthetic distinction is. >> >>>> How about answering my question? In your system are all facts >>>> axioms, or are they not? >> >> Still no answer? >> >>>>> By converting all of the atomic facts of empirical >>>>> general knowledge into axioms the whole 75 year old >>>>> nightmare is ended in this single sentence. >> >>>> Unlikely. I suggest to you yet again, converting all "atomic facts" >>>> (whatever they may be) to axioms will not result in a satisfactory or >>>> useful system. >> >>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge by >>> providing grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base. >> >> Vacuously so. If all facts are axioms, there is nothing left to prove. >> Of course, in this setup, determining if an assertion is an axiom or not >> is an insoluble problem. >> >> Maybe you mean something else by "atomic fact". You're clearly unable or >> unwilling to define that term. Obviously you either don't understand it, >> or you need to keep it vague to avoid being pinned down by logic and >> reality. >> >>> I just found the term: >>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >> >> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of >> understanding them. >> > > The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 > incompleteness fails. If they are mere gibberish words > to you then you will not understand. The reason Gödel 1931 incompleteness fails is because you flock to it like a popular A-ha song that we as frequent listeners have heard too often. While you are humming, "Take on me" and lightning hits you and fires across your shiny steel braces, we are just filling our ears with old socks and cotton if we can find it while waiting for the radio to cue up another song. >>> Prior to yesterday I had no idea how close PTS already >>> is to my own system. >> >> You're clueless about PTS. You can't explain it, you don't understand >> it. You just like trying to flummox others by throwing around big words >> and recondite phrases. When asked to explain what they mean, you just go >> all vague. "Your own system" is vacuous nonsense. >> > > If you know essentially nothing about PTS then when > I explain things using the terminology of PTS you will > not understand. I need to go to university today to > pick up a key PTS paper. From what I hear the only thing universities get right these days is STEM mathematics, far beneath your coveted PTS topologies and iso propyl alcohol fawning and frantic rubbing, as if it were a magic lantern. Admit it, you are a fanboi for higher mathematical logic even if you don't understand a word of it. >>> -- >>> Copyright 2026 Olcott the Pretentious >> > > -- We eat the night, we drink the time Make our dreams come true And hungry eyes are passing by On streets we call the zoo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 20:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <1119g43$2m31$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645553 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/20/2026 4:43 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 6/20/2026 2:48 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> [ .... ] > >>>>>> I only skimmed that digression from this point: > >>>>>> All empirical facts of general knowledge are encoded > >>>>>> as axioms. This forms the most comprehensive "atomic base" > >>>>>> for Proof Theoretic Semantics. > >>>>> So, in your system, all facts are axioms? > >>>> Since you are not a philosopher you have no idea what > >>>> a nightmare the analytic/synthetic distinction is. > >>> How about answering my question? In your system are all facts > >>> axioms, or are they not? > > Still no answer? > >>>> By converting all of the atomic facts of empirical > >>>> general knowledge into axioms the whole 75 year old > >>>> nightmare is ended in this single sentence. > >>> Unlikely. I suggest to you yet again, converting all "atomic facts" > >>> (whatever they may be) to axioms will not result in a satisfactory or > >>> useful system. > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge by > >> providing grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base. > > Vacuously so. If all facts are axioms, there is nothing left to prove. > > Of course, in this setup, determining if an assertion is an axiom or not > > is an insoluble problem. > > Maybe you mean something else by "atomic fact". You're clearly unable or > > unwilling to define that term. Obviously you either don't understand it, > > or you need to keep it vague to avoid being pinned down by logic and > > reality. > >> I just found the term: > >> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. > > You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of > > understanding them. > The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness > fails. I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have some credibility. > If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of it. > >> Prior to yesterday I had no idea how close PTS already is to my own > >> system. > > You're clueless about PTS. You can't explain it, you don't understand > > it. You just like trying to flummox others by throwing around big words > > and recondite phrases. When asked to explain what they mean, you just go > > all vague. "Your own system" is vacuous nonsense. > If you know essentially nothing about PTS then when > I explain things using the terminology of PTS you will > not understand. My lack of understanding of and lack of desire to understand PTS is not in question. It is YOU that is pretending to understand it, lying that you understand it, yet you are incapable of explaining the most basic of its terminology. You are being nauseatingly supercilious, purporting to be an expert in PTS, something you know next to nothing about. > I need to go to university today to pick up a key PTS paper. You might do better going tomorrow when it's open. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 15:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <1119ibn$12eb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645556 |
On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I just found the term: >>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. > >>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of >>> understanding them. > > >> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >> fails. > > I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the > truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes > Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have > some credibility. > >> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. > > You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't > understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of > it. > It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded in the atomic base of PA. That you do not understand what: "grounded in the atomic base" means is less than no rebuttal at all. -- 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 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 | 2026-06-21 15:08 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- analytic/synthetic distinction |
| Message-ID | <1119jrq$v9fi$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645557 |
On 2026-06-21 14:42, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I just found the term: >>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >> >>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of >>>> understanding them. >> >> >>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>> fails. >> >> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >> some credibility. >> >>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >> >> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >> it. >> > It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded > in the atomic base of PA. That you do not understand > what: "grounded in the atomic base" means is less > than no rebuttal at all. "grounded in the atomic base of PA" is an expression used only by you, and it is one which you have never explicitly defined, so the fault here certainly doesn't lie with Alan. It's certainly not a 'verified fact' when you haven't even adequately explained what it is that you mean. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge |
| Message-ID | <1119qho$14js0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645558 |
On 6/21/2026 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-06-21 14:42, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>> >>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're capable of >>>>> understanding them. >>> >>> >>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>> fails. >>> >>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >>> some credibility. >>> >>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >>> >>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >>> it. >>> >> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >> in the atomic base of PA. That you do not understand >> what: "grounded in the atomic base" means is less >> than no rebuttal at all. > > "grounded in the atomic base of PA" is an expression used only by you, > and it is one which you have never explicitly defined, so the fault here > certainly doesn't lie with Alan. It's certainly not a 'verified fact' > when you haven't even adequately explained what it is that you mean. > > André > All of knowledge expressed in language is structured as a tree of semantic relations specified syntactically between finite strings. I am working in anchoring all of the relevant details of "grounded in the atomic base" in quotes from published papers. -- 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 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 | 2026-06-21 18:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge |
| Message-ID | <1119u32$15blb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645561 |
On 2026-06-21 17:02, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-06-21 14:42, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>>> >>>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're >>>>>> capable of >>>>>> understanding them. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>>> fails. >>>> >>>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >>>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >>>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >>>> some credibility. >>>> >>>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >>>> >>>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly don't >>>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any proof of >>>> it. >>>> >>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >>> in the atomic base of PA. That you do not understand >>> what: "grounded in the atomic base" means is less >>> than no rebuttal at all. >> >> "grounded in the atomic base of PA" is an expression used only by you, >> and it is one which you have never explicitly defined, so the fault >> here certainly doesn't lie with Alan. It's certainly not a 'verified >> fact' when you haven't even adequately explained what it is that you >> mean. >> >> André >> > > All of knowledge expressed in language is structured as a tree of > semantic relations specified syntactically between finite strings. 'all knowledge expressed in language' isn't even a well-defined set. It is at best a fuzzy set. And it certainly isn't structured as a tree. > I am working in anchoring all of the relevant details > of "grounded in the atomic base" in quotes from > published papers. When you get around to doing that let us know. Until you do so talking about things being "grounded in the atomic base of PA" is essentially meaningless. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 19:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge -- Kristen Welker |
| Message-ID | <1119uls$15k81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645568 |
On 6/21/2026 7:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2026-06-21 17:02, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 4:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-21 14:42, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 3:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2026 6:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> I just found the term: >>>>>>>> "grounding in a proof theoretic atomic base" yesterday. >>>>> >>>>>>> You can find any number of terms. That doesn't mean you're >>>>>>> capable of >>>>>>> understanding them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The above is the key reason why under PTS Gödel 1931 incompleteness >>>>>> fails. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe you. You have no respect for or understanding of the >>>>> truth. If you really want to persuade anybody that PTS somehow causes >>>>> Gödel's theorem not to hold, then cite an academic expert who'll have >>>>> some credibility. >>>>> >>>>>> If they are mere gibberish words to you then you will not understand. >>>>> >>>>> You don't understand Proof-theoritic Semantics, and you certainly >>>>> don't >>>>> understand Gödel's Theorem, neither the theorem itself nor any >>>>> proof of >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>> It is a verified fact that Gödel's G is ungrounded >>>> in the atomic base of PA. That you do not understand >>>> what: "grounded in the atomic base" means is less >>>> than no rebuttal at all. >>> >>> "grounded in the atomic base of PA" is an expression used only by >>> you, and it is one which you have never explicitly defined, so the >>> fault here certainly doesn't lie with Alan. It's certainly not a >>> 'verified fact' when you haven't even adequately explained what it is >>> that you mean. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> All of knowledge expressed in language is structured as a tree of >> semantic relations specified syntactically between finite strings. > > 'all knowledge expressed in language' isn't even a well-defined set. Adapting the system recently created by Kristen Welker in her interview of Trump: One-two punch that destroys Liars #WhatIsTheEvidenceOfThat #ThatIsNotEvidence Around and around until they are defeated https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508 2026-06-07 Trump didn't have anything besides dishonest dodges when she kept pressing his for evidence of election fraud so he gave up and left the room. What is the specific concrete counter-example of an edge case of "knowledge expressed in language" -- 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 knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web