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 347 — 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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-07-11 22:52 -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 3 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 18 Next page →
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-27 10:16 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111ntc3$13irc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645680 |
On 26/06/2026 15:59, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2026 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic- semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is abstract in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a paradox. The two are different things. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction is a statement which is necessarily false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A paradox is a statement to which no truth value can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently assigned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The exact operational semantics of C conclusively >>>>>>>>>>> prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in >>>>>>>>>>> these operational semantics because this input >>>>>>>>>>> specifies non-terminating recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>> to HHH. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>>>> semantics >>>>>>>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove >>>>>>>>>> that DD >>>>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that >>>>>>>>>> environment DD >>>>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be >>>>>>>>>> aborted or it >>>>>>>>>> could be rejected by the compiler. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way >>>>>>>>> to handle pathological self-reference (PSR). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This would be dead obvious if you were not totally >>>>>>>>> clueless about Prolog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> % This sentence is not true. >>>>>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not nice to see that everyone continues to >>>>>>> totally ignore my best validation of proof >>>>>>> theoretic semantics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation >>>>>> of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics >>>>>> are not good enough. >>>>> >>>>> Is is dead obvious and completely clear example >>>>> of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using >>>>> generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in >>>>> Prolog. >>>> >>>> Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting >>>> different views about it -- and not even a resolution. >>>> >>> >>> If others did not reject mine out-of-hand >>> without review they could understand that >>> it is final. >> >> Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should >> understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion. > > There are many people that are certain that the Earth is flat. And some of them can present evidence to support that claim. But does proof theoretic semantcs mentioned above offer anything to determine the correctness of that claim? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 12:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118c1l$n31e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645511 |
On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>> >>> >>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>> "This sentence is not true" >> >> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >> >> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >> can be consistently assigned. >> >> André > > Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by > contradiction applies, You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove many theorems. If you really had said nothing about proofs by contradiction nobody would have no reason to say that you don't understand them, But you have said so much about them or in respose to them or comments about them that there is a motivation and a good basis to point out that you don't understand them. If you don't want that your defects are pointed out then don't post the evidence. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119aus$107fm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645541 |
On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>> "This sentence is not true" >>> >>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>> >>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>> can be consistently assigned. >>> >>> André >> >> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >> contradiction applies, > > You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by > contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove > many theorems. > Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to every proof theoretic semantics prover. All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. -- 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 12:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9qqbiFi2hlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #645552 |
olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by >> contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove >> many theorems. >> > > Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) > shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to > every proof theoretic semantics prover. > > All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been > working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. > > Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle > in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is > the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. > > You would confuse it with a thin mint girl scout cookie if the rest of the people were doing it, not to mention jump off a cliff. You are the poster boy for mathematical band wagon riding. -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111akcf$1aic6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645552 |
On 21/06/2026 21:36, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 22:02, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What superficially looks like contradiction >>>>> "This sentence is not true" >>>> >>>> Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>> >>>> The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. The two >>>> are different things. A contradiction is a statement which is >>>> necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which no truth value >>>> can be consistently assigned. >>>> >>>> André >>> >>> Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>> contradiction applies, >> >> You have. Everything that can be proven can be proven by a proof by >> contradiction, and often is, as that is the simpest way to prove >> many theorems. >> > > Each of the cases of pathological self-reference (PSR) > shows up as infinitely recursive inference steps to > every proof theoretic semantics prover. > > All of the "undecidable" instances that I have been > working on since 2004 have only involved PSR. > > Confusing PSR for contradiction instead of a cycle > in the directed graph of the evaluation sequence is > the mistake of everyone else not my mistake. Nice to see that you don't disagree. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11165rj$435a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>> section at the end: > >>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>> Does this have any meaning? > >> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >> effort if it is possible at all. > > Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. -- 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 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1116but$1q26$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645479 |
[ Followup-To: set] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics > >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) > >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and > >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject > >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) > >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to > >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. > >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in > >>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is > >>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't > >>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered > >>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that > >>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" > >>> section at the end: > >>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been > >>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role > >>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and > >>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined > >>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential > >>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical > >>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>> Does this have any meaning? > >> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the > >> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and > >> effort if it is possible at all. > > Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it does. We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116cn6$63mn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645492 |
On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: > >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or > at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it > does. > You have failed to sufficiently understand the gist of proof theoretic semantics. This applies to your next statement as well. You must have a 100% complete understanding of the gist of PTS and then my ideas are proven coherent and true. > We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not > high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, > and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some > mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and > PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > >> -- >> 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1116dtl$1q26$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #645494 |
[ Followup-To: set] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson > >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics > >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) > >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and > >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject > >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) > >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to > >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. > >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in > >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is > >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't > >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be > >>>>> bothered to read it any further. If it actually says anything at > >>>>> all, that something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion > >>>>> and Outlook" section at the end: > >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been > >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role > >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and > >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined > >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential > >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical > >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the > >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and > >>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or > > at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it > > does. > You have failed to sufficiently understand the gist of proof > theoretic semantics. No, I have understood it well enough. It is an immature branch of philosophy which gives mathematical results the same as standard logic does. It is _you_ who have failed sufficiently to understand PTS. Otherwise you could answer questions about it. > This applies to your next statement as well. You must have a 100% > complete understanding of the gist of PTS and then my ideas are proven > coherent and true. That is a condescending lie. Your ideas are very far from proven and true, and I don't know anybody who isn't you who finds them coherent. However Gödel's Theorem is proven and true. If it contradicts your ideas, then your ideas are invalid. If you dispute that, then you must show that an essential part of a proof of the theorem is somehow mistaken. This you cannot do, due to your not understanding Gödel's Theorem or its proof, and your not understanding the notion of a mathematical proof. > > We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not > > high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, > > and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some > > mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and > > PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > -- > Copyright 2026 Olcott -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 11:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1116fjk$716u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645496 |
On 6/20/2026 11:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>> bothered to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>> all, that something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>> and Outlook" section at the end: > >>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > >>> Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or >>> at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it >>> does. > > >> You have failed to sufficiently understand the gist of proof >> theoretic semantics. > > No, I have understood it well enough. It is an immature branch of > philosophy which gives mathematical results the same as standard logic > does. It is _you_ who have failed sufficiently to understand PTS. > Otherwise you could answer questions about it. > PTS has been around since the 1930's Within proof theoretic semantics expressions ungrounded in an atomic base cannot derive PTS meaning. -- 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 | 2026-07-11 22:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <112v32b$2hohf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645492 |
On 6/20/2026 10:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out > >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. > >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. > > >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ > >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. > >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: > >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra-logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. > >>>>> Does this have any meaning? > >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. > >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > Taking a best guess at what that phrase is meant to mean, it doesn't. Or > at the very least, you have failed to meet your burden of proof that it > does. > When the entire body of general knowledge expressed in language is a finite list of atomic facts and relations between these facts then truth becomes computable by lookup table for this entire body. > We know that in any sufficiently powerful language (and the bar is not > high), there are statements which are "incomputable". If you doubt this, > and still believe PTS gives a different result, please show some > mathematical proof which comes out differently between standard logic and > PTS, illustrating the essence of PTS which makes it so. > -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 13:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118dct$nf7k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645479 |
On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >> >>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >> >>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >> >>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>> bothered >>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>> section at the end: >> >>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >>>> role >>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, and >>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>> defined >>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>> logical >>>> | inferential definitions alike. >> >>>> Does this have any meaning? >> >>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>> effort if it is possible at all. >> >> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? What it > > It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine are of claims that are true on some other basis. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 18:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1119tkt$15ama$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645544 |
On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>> >>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> >>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>> >>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>> bothered >>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>> section at the end: >>> >>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >>>>> role >>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, >>>>> and >>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>> defined >>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>> logical >>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>> >>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>> >>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>> >>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>> What it >> >> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. > > If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we > usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational > tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine > are of claims that are true on some other basis. > The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove that these are lies to every level of understanding between kindergarten and PhD. -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 09:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111akjn$1aic6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645565 |
On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>> >>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>> abstract in >>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>> >>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>> bothered >>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>> section at the end: >>>> >>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>> central role >>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>> defined >>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>>> logical >>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>> >>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>> >>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>> >>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>> What it >>> >>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >> >> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >> are of claims that are true on some other basis. > > The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies > of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove > that these are lies to every level of understanding > between kindergarten and PhD. You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single lie that would matter to typical people. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 07:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <111b8e8$1gfkt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645579 |
On 6/22/2026 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>> >>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>> can't >>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>> >>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>> >>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>> central role >>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>>>>>> logical >>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>> >>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>> >>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>> >>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>> What it >>>> >>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>> >>> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >>> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >>> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >>> are of claims that are true on some other basis. >> >> The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies >> of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove >> that these are lies to every level of understanding >> between kindergarten and PhD. > > You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single > lie that would matter to typical people. > Nothing is going to work until we get everyone to understand the difference between truth and lies Thanks to Kristen Welker: (Meet the Press interview of Trump) We now have two phrases that break propaganda #WhatIsTheEvidenceOfThat #ThatIsNotEvidence KEEP HOUNDING THEM UNTIL THEY CRACK !!! https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508 -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 08:43 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <111d6du$21jq2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645588 |
On 22/06/2026 15:05, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2026 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>>> central role >>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>>>>>>> defined >>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>> extra- logical >>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>>> What it >>>>> >>>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>>> >>>> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >>>> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >>>> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >>>> are of claims that are true on some other basis. >>> >>> The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies >>> of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove >>> that these are lies to every level of understanding >>> between kindergarten and PhD. >> >> You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single >> lie that would matter to typical people. > > Nothing is going to work until we get everyone to > understand the difference between truth and lies I.e., nothing id going to ever work. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 09:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars |
| Message-ID | <111e5ou$2atih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645623 |
On 6/23/2026 12:43 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 22/06/2026 15:05, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2026 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who >>>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be >>>>>>>>> bothered >>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and >>>>>>>>> Outlook" >>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>>>> central role >>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can >>>>>>>>> be defined >>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>>> extra- logical >>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>>>> What it >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >>>>> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >>>>> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >>>>> are of claims that are true on some other basis. >>>> >>>> The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies >>>> of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove >>>> that these are lies to every level of understanding >>>> between kindergarten and PhD. >>> >>> You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single >>> lie that would matter to typical people. >> >> Nothing is going to work until we get everyone to >> understand the difference between truth and lies > > I.e., nothing id going to ever work. > Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508 // 2026-06-07 One-two punch Destroys Liars #WhatIsTheEvidence #ThatIsNotEvidence Around and around until Defeated This worked on Trump. He was so defeated that he quit the interview and got up and walked out. Even people that don't know any better can be taught the differnce between truth and lies in that truth has evidence. They will need to see lots of repetition where every time a lie is challenged with the above system it fails and the Liar gets up and walks out in defeat. -- 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 | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 08:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punch Destroys Liars |
| Message-ID | <UnWdnYGP6Z1oNqf3nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #645633 |
On 06/23/2026 07:38 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/23/2026 12:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 22/06/2026 15:05, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/22/2026 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>> abstract in >>>>>>>>>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>> abstraction is >>>>>>>>>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>> who can't >>>>>>>>>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't >>>>>>>>>> be bothered >>>>>>>>>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and >>>>>>>>>> Outlook" >>>>>>>>>> section at the end: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>> exclusively been >>>>>>>>>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>>>>> central role >>>>>>>>>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>>> exclusive, and >>>>>>>>>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can >>>>>>>>>> be defined >>>>>>>>>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>> inferential >>>>>>>>>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>>>> extra- logical >>>>>>>>>> | inferential definitions alike. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does this have any meaning? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >>>>>>>>> effort if it is possible at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful for? >>>>>>>> What it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" >>>>>>> reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >>>>>> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational >>>>>> tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine >>>>>> are of claims that are true on some other basis. >>>>> >>>>> The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies >>>>> of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove >>>>> that these are lies to every level of understanding >>>>> between kindergarten and PhD. >>>> >>>> You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single >>>> lie that would matter to typical people. >>> >>> Nothing is going to work until we get everyone to >>> understand the difference between truth and lies >> >> I.e., nothing id going to ever work. >> > > Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump > https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508 > // 2026-06-07 > > One-two punch Destroys Liars > #WhatIsTheEvidence > #ThatIsNotEvidence > Around and around until Defeated > > This worked on Trump. He was so defeated that he > quit the interview and got up and walked out. > > Even people that don't know any better can be > taught the differnce between truth and lies > in that truth has evidence. > > They will need to see lots of repetition where > every time a lie is challenged with the above > system it fails and the Liar gets up and walks > out in defeat. > Du bist ein Krank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-20 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <11169dq$547p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645461 |
On 6/20/2026 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>> Making sure to leave out >> >>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >> >> >>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >> >> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >> even understand proof by contradiction. >> >> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >> section at the end: >> >> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a central >> role >> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the exclusive, >> and >> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >> defined >> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >> logical >> | inferential definitions alike. >> >> Does this have any meaning? > > Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the > near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and > effort if it is possible at all. > Proof Theoretic Semantics is the basis that makes: "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. A sememe is the smallest indivisible unit of meaning in linguistics. PTS forms a tree of knowledge such that every sememe is connected to all of its semantic meaning entirely via connections to other sememes. I have previously referred to this as a semantic tautology. -- Copyright 2026 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. The complete structure of this system is now defined. The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal language such as CycL of the Cyc project. (b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-21 14:04 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <1118gf4$oa7t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645487 |
On 20/06/2026 17:51, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2026 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>> Making sure to leave out >>> >>>>>>> Proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>> (an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>>>>> Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>>>> Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>> >>> >>>> Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>> look into proof theoretic semantics. >>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>> >>> I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is abstract in >>> the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of abstraction is >>> well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, who can't >>> even understand proof by contradiction. >>> >>> That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't be bothered >>> to read it any further. If it actually says anything at all, that >>> something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and Outlook" >>> section at the end: >>> >>> | Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically exclusively been >>> | occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>> central role >>> | in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>> exclusive, and >>> | perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that can be >>> defined >>> | inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with inferential >>> | definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and extra- >>> logical >>> | inferential definitions alike. >>> >>> Does this have any meaning? >> >> Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and in the >> near future not useful as making it useful requires much time and >> effort if it is possible at all. > > Proof Theoretic Semantics is the basis that makes: > "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language" > reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge. Can you prove that that really is computable? Anyway, that something is called "computable" does not tell how to compute it. > A sememe is the smallest indivisible unit of meaning > in linguistics. > > PTS forms a tree of knowledge such that every sememe > is connected to all of its semantic meaning entirely > via connections to other sememes. Is that structure really a tree? Is that structure any different from the structure formed by inferences and theorems? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web