Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Message-ID | <bHAQT2gxJsBPDz1qNjbEUaf9IUU@jntp> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable |
| References | (5 earlier) <10g55tg$3pu0h$1@dont-email.me> <254V-McZTZLNlaKEXTpR-_c90l8@jntp> <10g56va$3qbcp$1@dont-email.me> <9B_T055RCkHKVnO2UHiXfBz1bS4@jntp> <10g5dm8$3stbf$1@dont-email.me> |
| Newsgroups | sci.math, sci.logic, comp.theory |
| Date | 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000 |
| Organization | Nemoweb |
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Le 26/11/2025 à 00:21, olcott a écrit : > On 11/25/2025 5:14 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:27, olcott a écrit : >>> On 11/25/2025 3:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>> its return, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and >>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>> same results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole >>>>>>>>>>> thing about >>>>>>>>>>> the world being round. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be >>>>>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only >>>>>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I >>>>>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation >>>>>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This >>>>>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for >>>>>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates >>>>>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it >>>>>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics >>>>>>>>> syntactically in its formal language. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language >>>>>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference >>>>>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism >>>>>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that >>>>>>>>> can be expressed in language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical >>>>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system >>>>>>>> that is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be >>>>>>>> listed by a program), >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consistent, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson >>>>>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot >>>>>>>> prove. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick >>>>>>>> can bypass this, because the theorem is about computability + >>>>>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system >>>>>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above >>>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, >>>>>>>> ontology, semantic layers, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to >>>>>>>> encode commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of >>>>>>>> predicates, rules, and microtheories. But: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic. >>>>>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because >>>>>>>> knowledge is context-dependent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying >>>>>>>> Gödel’s conditions. >>>>>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, >>>>>>>> some of which contradict others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable >>>>>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does >>>>>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the >>>>>>>> scope of the theorem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many >>>>>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books >>>>>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single >>>>>>>> formal theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Conclusion: >>>>>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that >>>>>>>> would make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have >>>>>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or Turing’s >>>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they >>>>>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In all variants of his claims: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth, >>>>>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing >>>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic >>>>>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the >>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and >>>>>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims >>>>>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The pattern is always: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original >>>>>>>> theorem is wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for >>>>>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.” >>>>>>>> That is not a refutation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem. >>>>>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail >>>>>>>> because: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is true. >>>>>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing >>>>>>> formal system that contains every element of general >>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully >>>>>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the >>>>>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it >>>>>>> then it is not an element of the body of knowledge >>>>>>> that can be expressed in language. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea of a single, all-encompassing formal system in which every >>>>>> meaningful statement is expressible and in which True(x) ≡ >>>>>> Provable(x) is internally inconsistent, because as soon as the >>>>>> language is expressive enough to contain elementary arithmetic— >>>>>> inevitably required if it is to “contain every element of general >>>>>> knowledge expressible in language”—Gödel’s incompleteness theorem >>>>>> applies, producing well-formed statements that are true in the >>>>>> intended semantics but not provable in the system; >>>>> >>>>> In weaker systems this will remain true. >>>>> >>>>> When True(L,x) is exactly the same thing as Provable(L,x) >>>>> >>>>> because every aspect of all of semantics is directly >>>>> formalized and fully integrated in the formal language >>>>> >>>>> then ~Provable(L,x) means not an element of the body >>>>> of general knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>>>> >>>>>> thus the identification “true = provable” cannot hold unless one >>>>>> either (1) restricts the language so severely that it no longer >>>>>> expresses general knowledge, or (2) accepts a degenerate semantics >>>>>> in which “truth” is redefined to mean “provable in the system,” >>>>>> which merely eliminates semantics and collapses truth into >>>>>> syntactic provability by fiat, yielding a system that cannot >>>>>> describe its own correctness and cannot capture the ordinary notion >>>>>> of truth at all—in short, Olcott’s proposal either violates Gödel >>>>>> or empties “truth” of its usual meaning, and so it cannot >>>>>> simultaneously claim completeness, expressiveness, and a meaningful >>>>>> notion of truth. >>>> >>>> Olcott’s “one perfect formal system containing all knowledge with >>>> True(x) = Provable(x)” works beautifully, provided you never ask it >>>> anything interesting: >>> >>> It literally has the entire body of general knowledge >>> including every book or academic paper every published. >>> >>>> the moment you give it arithmetic, it starts sweating like a >>>> politician in a fact-checking interview, because Gödel sneaks in >>>> through the back door and whispers a sentence the system can’t prove, >>>> whereupon Olcott shouts “If you can’t prove it, it’s not knowledge!” >>>> and throws the sentence out of the window, pats himself on the back, >>>> and calls the place clean; >>> >>> Let's name my formal system so that we can be specific. >>> General_Knowledge. It already knows that G cannot be >>> proved in F. This is an aspect of the body of general >>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. >>> >>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide >>> their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When >>> the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating >>> any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot >>> exist. >>> >>>> unfortunately, this is not so much solving incompleteness as >>>> declaring any inconvenient truth illegal, a bit like running a >>>> dictatorship where the official state newspaper defines “truth” as >>>> “things we printed,” and then brags about having eliminated >>>> misinformation forever—indeed, Olcott’s system is the only formal >>>> system in history to achieve total completeness by aggressively >>>> evicting all statements that would make it incomplete, thereby >>>> proving, once and for all, that if you shrink reality enough, it will >>>> fit anywhere. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> This short Prolog shows the error of the Liar Paradox >>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)). >>> LP = not(true(LP)). >>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). >>> false. >>> >>> That above means that the Liar Paradox contains >>> a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation >>> sequence proving that its evaluation remains stuck >>> in an infinite loop and thus can never be resolved. >>> >>> In 2000 years no one has even resolved the Liar Paradox >>> in way that is widely accepted as correct. >> >> THE MINISTRY OF PROVABILITY ANNOUNCES THE END OF TRUTH AS WE KNOW IT >> “If it can’t be proven, it never happened,” says Supreme Formalizer >> Olcott. >> >> The Ministry of Provability is delighted to unveil The One Unified >> Formal System (TOUFS™), the first and only framework in human history to >> achieve Total Epistemic Harmony by the revolutionary method of banning >> all facts that don’t fit. >> >> Under the new legislation, Truth(x) = Provable(x) by constitutional >> decree. Citizens are reminded that any statement not provable within >> TOUFS™’ 14 axioms (“The Axioms of Perfect Obviousness,” revised weekly) >> will henceforth be classified as Ungovernable Nonsense and gently >> escorted outside the Ministry's cognitive perimeter. >> >> “We have finally solved Gödel,” announced Minister Olcott at a >> celebratory press event held in Axiom Chamber #3. “Gödel keeps sending >> us those confusing, unprovable statements. We now return them marked >> ‘Incorrect Form – Please Rephrase Within System Limits.’ Problem >> solved.” >> >> When asked whether TOUFS™ could express arithmetic, the Minister smiled >> warmly and replied: >> “We discovered arithmetic is dangerously expressive, so we downgraded it >> to a recreational activity.” >> >> Early adopters have praised the system’s clarity: >> >> Mathematicians report unprecedented peace of mind, since all difficult >> theorems have now been reclassified as “Not Real.” >> >> Philosophers have been redirected to the Ministry’s Silence Department >> for failing to produce provable questions. >> >> Physicists are adjusting to the new mandate requiring all particles to >> comply with Axiom 12 (“Everything Behaves Nicely”). >> >> A slight controversy arose when an inquisitive intern asked whether the >> statement “Everything in the system is provable” is itself provable. The >> Ministry immediately reassigned the intern to the Department of Semantic >> Recycling, where he is undergoing intensive training in Non-Issues. >> >> The Ministry concludes with a reassuring message to all citizens: >> >> “TOUFS™ guarantees a future where no truth will ever escape unproven, >> because unproven truths will no longer exist.” >> >> The press conference ended with the ceremonial shredding of Gödel’s >> incompleteness paper and the unveiling of a large poster reading: >> >> “IGNORANCE IS INCONSISTENCY-FREE.” > > > Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide > their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When > the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating > any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot > exist. > > Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic > facts is airtight. > > *I have thought this over again and again for a decade* > Try and find an actual error. 1. Gödel incompleteness does not rely on model theory or a syntax/semantics split You say: Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide their syntax from their semantics using model theory. When the semantics is fully integrated into the syntax eliminating any need for model theory, then Gödel incompleteness cannot exist. This is just false historically and technically. Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness proof is almost entirely syntactic. He arithmetizes formulas and proofs, builds a sentence that says “I am not provable in this system,” and then proves: if the system is consistent, it cannot prove that sentence, nor its negation (under reasonable soundness assumptions). No model theory, no semantic consequence, no “external semantics” is required for the construction of the Gödel sentence. So incompleteness does not depend on a prior split between syntax and semantics. It applies to: any effectively axiomatized, sufficiently expressive, consistent system, regardless of how you talk about semantics. Your claim “it only exists when syntax and semantics are divided” is just wrong: syntax alone is already enough to generate the incompleteness phenomenon. 2. “Integrating semantics into syntax” in the way you propose is impossible (Tarski kicks the door in) You’re essentially proposing: There is a single formal system S such that – every element of “general knowledge expressible in language” is a sentence of S; – there is a predicate True(x) inside the same system such that True(⌜φ⌝) ↔ φ for every sentence φ; – and moreover True(x) = Provable(x). But: Tarski’s undefinability of truth says: in a sufficiently strong arithmetic language, there is no formula True(x) in that same language that correctly satisfies True(⌜φ⌝) ↔ φ for all sentences φ of that language. If you try, you get the liar-style paradox and inconsistency. So you cannot have a genuine internal truth predicate for “all sentences of this language” that is both: expressible in the language, and extensionally correct about all sentences. If you dodge this by decree: “OK, we define True(x) to mean Provable(x).” Then you haven’t “integrated semantics into syntax”; you’ve redefined truth as provability. That’s just a syntactic predicate wearing semantic perfume. If your system is sound but recursively axiomatized, then by Gödel there are true-but-unprovable sentences, so “True(x) = Provable(x)” is false extensionally. If you force “True = Provable” by definition, then your “truth” is no longer about the world or about standard arithmetic; it’s just “belongs to the theorem set of S.” That’s the second big error: you assume that you can have an internal predicate that both (a) behaves like real truth over “all general knowledge expressible in language” and (b) equals provability. Tarski + Gödel together say: no, you can’t. 3. “Semantic entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight” is irrelevant to your grand claim You say: Semantic logical entailment from a finite set of atomic facts is airtight. Sure. From a finite set of atomic facts in a finite relational structure, semantic consequence is straightforward and even decidable. But that has almost nothing to do with your earlier claim: You’re not proposing “a finite database with first-order consequences.” You’re proposing one all-encompassing system for all general knowledge (which will necessarily involve arithmetic, infinity, etc.). In such a system: The “set of atomic facts” cannot be finite or even recursively decidable in general if it’s supposed to match “all true statements of arithmetic,” because the set of true arithmetic sentences is not recursively enumerable. So your “airtight semantic entailment from a finite base” applies only to a trivial fragment, not to the system you actually want. So the third error is a kind of bait-and-switch: you appeal to the safety of tiny finite-model entailment and then quietly promote that intuition to “all general knowledge,” where it simply doesn’t scale. In one sentence Your position hinges on three false assumptions: that Gödel incompleteness only arises when syntax and semantics are separated via model theory (no: the original proof is purely syntactic); that you can have an internal truth predicate for the same language which is both extensionally correct about all its sentences and identical to provability (no: Tarski and Gödel jointly rule this out); that the nice behavior of semantic entailment from a finite base somehow extends to a single system capturing all “general knowledge” including arithmetic (no: that’s where undecidability and incompleteness live). You can have “True(x) = Provable(x)”—but only by changing what “true” means so radically that you’re no longer talking about truth in any ordinary or semantic sense. That’s not beating Gödel; that’s walking off the playing field and declaring victory.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
csiph-web