On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you
mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions
used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
On 7/12/2026 8:19 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions
used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
My terms of my art are my
Stipulative definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
On 7/12/2026 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:19 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>>> used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
My terms of my art are my
Stipulative definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
And the existing definitions in mathematics and computation theory, including the definitions of true, proven, provable, complete,
incomplete, decidable, undecidable, etc. are stipulated definitions.
And as your yourself said:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
Any system that is only a set of true statements
is inherently correct.
[ Followup-To: set ]The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about >>>>>> the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>> facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>> is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no bearing >> on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to >>> prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the >>> correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system >>> is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
----
Mikko
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you mean >>>>>> formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions
used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to >>>>> prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>>>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the >>>>> correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>> facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system >>>>> is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question >>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth. I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely possible.
What you have just described is more or less what we have at the moment.
Yes I accept the irony.
--
Mikko
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you
mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions
used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect.
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You're simply opening the door for equivocation in your alleged system. Non-specialist dictionaries are hardly the place to look for
sufficiently precise definitions to serve as technical terms.
Andr|-
Op 12.jul.2026 om 18:23 schreef olcott:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think
he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his
basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
Any system that is only a set of true statements
is inherently correct.
So, you think that the correctness your is part of your system that
contains all knowledge?
Is the sentence: 'Olcott's system is correct' accepted or rejected by
your system?
Depending on the answer our system either has a self reference, or it is incomplete.
It is just an example to show the inherent inconsistency in your reasoning.
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do
you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence
that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as
an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove
your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building. He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth. I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
----
Mikko
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>> able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his >>>>>>> basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>> system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE
SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no
bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their
freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence
that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as
an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove
your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >>>> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building. >>> He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth. I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely
possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you
can "prove" anything.
We've been over this already, recently. The fact is, there just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete" set of general
knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't enough people or machines
to do it.
[ .... ]
--
Mikko
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/13/2026 9:49 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions
used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You have to start somewhere dip shit.
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 2026-07-13 09:34, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 9:49 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>>> used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You have to start somewhere dip shit.
But there are already perfectly serviceable definitions in use which are
far more precise.
What possible benefit can be achieved by replacing
those precise definitions with vague ones? You're not 'starting', you're moving backwards.
Andr|-
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more
than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my
last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this?
On 7/13/2026 11:47 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 09:34, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 9:49 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>>>> used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You have to start somewhere dip shit.
But there are already perfectly serviceable definitions in use which
are far more precise.
-a What possible benefit can be achieved by replacing
They have extraneous baggage that I must exclude.
On 2026-07-13 11:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:47 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 09:34, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 9:49 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only >>>>>>>>>>> reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the
definitions used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYSincorrect.
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You have to start somewhere dip shit.
But there are already perfectly serviceable definitions in use which
are far more precise.
-a What possible benefit can be achieved by replacing
They have extraneous baggage that I must exclude.
But if you take precise definitions and make them more vague,
you are
not excluding anything. You are simply adding *additional* meanings to
the ones already present. So anything you might consider 'baggage' is
still there in your 'new' definitions. As I said, you're moving
backwards, not forwards.
Andr|-
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:That remains to be shown. Just because you have a massive table of
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:Comenius language
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost theThis aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as >>>>> an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove
your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >>>> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
envisaging/building. He is writing about his "system" delivering
absolute proven truth. I think he is the only poster with any
belief that this is even remotely possible.
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
Excludes what?With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) youMy above spec excludes that.
can "prove" anything.
Which we've already established as being too little, by an enormousWe've been over this already, recently. The fact is, there justOne small server room with highest capacity
aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete" set of
general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't enough people
or machines to do it.
SSDs can store 200 petabytes.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my
last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>> self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as >>>>>>> an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove >>>>>>> your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >>>>>> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that >>>>>> the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be
envisaging/building. He is writing about his "system" delivering
absolute proven truth. I think he is the only poster with any
belief that this is even remotely possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown. Just because you have a massive table of
purported "truth", no matter how complete, doesn't imply you could
extract an arbitrary truth from it. In fact, by G||del's incompleteness theorem, you couldn't.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you
can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
Excludes what?
We've been over this already, recently. The fact is, there just
aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete" set of
general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't enough people
or machines to do it.
One small server room with highest capacity
SSDs can store 200 petabytes.
Which we've already established as being too little, by an enormous
margin, to hold _all_ general knowledge.
But even it it weren't, one person typing in 200 petabytes at 10
characters per second without any breaks would take 2 x 10^13 seconds = something over 600,000 years. It can't be done.
On 7/12/2026 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:31 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
You dishonestly erased most of what I said.
If you look at a cow directly in the face is this
empirical proof that you are looking at a cow?
Strawman.-a We're not talking about looking at a cow.
Not strawman. I am testing the exact degree that
you are a damned liar.
I have never lied about anything.-a What is the evidence of that?
I believe that you could
look a cow directly in the face and equivocate
that this proves that at least one cow exists.
On 7/13/2026 12:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
And your claim that "That no one can possibly provide any actual
evidence of election fraud" has no supporting evidence.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Just because you have a massive table of
purported "truth", no matter how complete, doesn't imply you could
extract an arbitrary truth from it.
On 7/12/2026 3:34 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 14:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Proof that there is no evidence of X is not the same thing as proof
that X is false.
Its proof that those claiming there is evidence
are damned liars. This is a life or death of the
planet thing and you act as if it is a silly game.
That seems to make you very evil.
As soon as you start talking about 'empirical proof' is is clear that
you are *not* discussing proof as used in mathematics, which means you
are posting to the entirely wrong newsgroups.
Andr|-
The dumb fucks in the world need to hear these strongest
words or they will continue to believe that Trump is
not a damned liar.
On 2026-07-13 09:34, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 9:49 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>>> used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You have to start somewhere dip shit.
But there are already perfectly serviceable definitions in use which are
far more precise. What possible benefit can be achieved by replacing
those precise definitions with vague ones? You're not 'starting', you're moving backwards.
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is not
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:That remains to be shown.
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
So you keep saying. But you have never advanced any evidence for it.Just because you have a massive table of purported "truth", noThe complete set of facts of general knowledge
matter how complete, doesn't imply you could extract an arbitrary
truth from it.
combined with the complete set relations between
these facts <is> the entire body of general knowledge.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>> task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more >>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my
last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have
a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
But I'll try putting the
question to you again:
Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims
that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish?
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot
exist.
On 2026-07-13 14:48, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
How exactly do you plan on establishing which things are actual facts?
Often, the facts are disputed. Why should anyone trust your particular
table of 'atomic facts'? Garbage in, garbage out.
Andr|-
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot
exist.
Just because you have a massive table of purported "truth", no
matter how complete, doesn't imply you could extract an arbitrary
truth from it.
The complete set of facts of general knowledge
combined with the complete set relations between
these facts <is> the entire body of general knowledge.
So you keep saying. But you have never advanced any evidence for it.
And as I said, any set of facts is by its very nature incomplete.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 07/13/2026 02:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic facts" is not
even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set cannot
exist.
Just because you have a massive table of purported "truth", no
matter how complete, doesn't imply you could extract an arbitrary
truth from it.
The complete set of facts of general knowledge
combined with the complete set relations between
these facts <is> the entire body of general knowledge.
So you keep saying.-a But you have never advanced any evidence for it.
And as I said, any set of facts is by its very nature incomplete.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
Perhaps we could find something interesting to talk about.
I'm more interested in what Alan or Andre think is foundational.
Though, mostly I already have a theory of "Foundations" so
then I'd be pointing out that paradox-free reason makes for
a classical non-quasi-modal logic then for omitting material implication
and also getting rid of ex falso quodlibet while
having a thorough account of formal logic, the objects of mathematics including infinity and continuity for arithmetic and geometry,
and these kinds of things.
The universe and universals since accounts of univocity and
for the absolute and infinity and continuity and so on,
what these days are sometimes called "non-standard" or "non-classical",
here there's "extra-standard" and "super-classical".
It seems pretty clear that PO's already "had his say".
Which isn't saying much, ....
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>>>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>> task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any more >>> than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my
last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to >>>>> prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>>>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the >>>>> correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>> facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system >>>>> is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question >>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.
It is a stupid idea to leap to detailed design until after the
fundamental architecture has been fully validated.
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as >>>>>> an example.-a Fred's question was about how are you going to prove >>>>>> your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >>>>> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/
building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.-a I >>>> think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely >>>> possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you
can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
On 7/13/2026 11:47 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 09:34, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 9:49 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 19:18, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 7:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:On 7/12/2026 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2026-07-12 17:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 5:31 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:>>>
You're posting to sci.math and comp.theory so it is only
reasonable for people to conclude that when you say proof you >>>>>>>>>> mean formal proof.
I am using stipulated definitions because it is
very important that the least educated totally
understand me.
When on a particular forum you should stick with the definitions >>>>>>>> used there.
This would generally be the case except
ALL disagreement with Stipulative definitions is ALWAYS incorrect. >>>>>>
The terms of my art must be defined from scratch.
The terms of the art of other fields totally fucks
this up.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
proof (noun)
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proof
Those definitions are far to vague to constitute terms of the art.
You have to start somewhere dip shit.
But there are already perfectly serviceable definitions in use which
are far more precise.
-a What possible benefit can be achieved by replacing
They have extraneous baggage that I must exclude.
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:[ .... ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Meaningless word salad.All undecidability is unmasked as semanticFacts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is notThat remains to be shown.Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot
exist.
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determiningYou should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms.
what is true we get fucked up results.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semanticIt doesn't.
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understandYou should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitionsYou're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 13/07/2026 16:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do
you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence
that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully searching for
the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that could have
possibly change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as
an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove
your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With
sufficient disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds
evidence that the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be
envisaging/building. He is writing about his "system" delivering
absolute proven truth.
Not really. He has his own meaning for "true" and related words. The stipulated basic facts are "true" by his meaning, and therefore proven
in his system. Real world truth is not relevant.
----
Mikko
On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims
that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph,
and that this task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any
more than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in
my last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept
this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have
a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
The above is the key point that I am making
and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge
this point.
But I'll try putting the question to you again:
Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish?
The proof of my claims comes from comprehending
the exact meaning of my words.
You always disagree with my definitions of my terms as a lame excuse to remain nothing but disagreeable.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning,
so there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims
that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, >>>>>>> and that this task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any
more than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in
my last post. They cannot thus be regarded as true. Do you accept
this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to have >>> a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
The above is the key point that I am making
and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge
this point.
Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've
made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild
claims, should not be accepted without evidence.
But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I
am calling you out as a hypocrite.
But I'll try putting the question to you again:
Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your claims
that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that >>> this task is feasible to accomplish?
The proof of my claims comes from comprehending
the exact meaning of my words.
You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning.
You always disagree with my definitions of my terms as a lame excuse to
remain nothing but disagreeable.
You promulgate falsehoods.
You attempt to prevent their exposure by
equivocally "defining" terms. Your very posting style makes it difficult/impossible to expose your falsehoods without appearing
disagreeable to you.
I care about the truth. That's not something I expect you to understand.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 13/07/2026 19:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Of course they can, and people often do.
But one can say that they
sould not, though that is a matter of opinion.
Anyway, there you have an explanation why only very little of what
you have bsaid has been accepted as true.
On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that all >>> general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting
evidence" you did not exclude your own claims.
On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims
that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any
more
than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my >>>> last post.-a They cannot thus be regarded as true.-a Do you accept this? >>
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
And not more useful than trying to have a sensible conversation with
a rock.
It is sufficient to point out at least some error. Sometimes that leads
to conversation even if not a sensible one but sometimes one can find
good enough counter-argument to avoid further converstkion.
On 13/07/2026 16:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about >>>>>> the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>> facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>> is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.
Not really. He has his own meaning for "true" and related words. The stipulated basic facts are "true" by his meaning, and therefore proven
in his system. Real world truth is not relevant.
On 14/07/2026 02:05, olcott wrote:
It is a stupid idea to leap to detailed design until after the
fundamental architecture has been fully validated.
Not necessarily. There is little risk in designing details that are
known to be necessary or easy to design or helpful to the vaidcation
of the fundamental architecture.
On 7/14/2026 7:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to
have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
The above is the key point that I am making
and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge
this point.
Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've
made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild claims, should not be accepted without evidence.
As soon as you quit your dick head move I will stop
using this course language. Until then I really need
their slap-in-the0face power.
But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I am calling you out as a hypocrite.
But I'll try putting the question to you again:
Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your
claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic
graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish?
The proof of my claims comes from comprehending
the exact meaning of my words.
You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning.
You always disagree with everything that I say instead
of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking
doing that.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 13/07/2026 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>> self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>> question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as >>>>>>> an example.-a Fred's question was about how are you going to prove >>>>>>> your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that >>>>>> the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/
building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.-a I >>>>> think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely >>>>> possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you
can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
That is insufficient to ensure that an implementation, if there ever
would be one, would exclude it.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
That's got nothing to do with the question I put to you. Trying to
have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
The above is the key point that I am making
and you keep fucking trying to fucking dodge
this point.
Relearn the art of expressing yourself without offence. I think I've
made it clear that I accept your point that claims, particularly wild
claims, should not be accepted without evidence.
As soon as you quit your dick head move I will stop
using this course language. Until then I really need
their slap-in-the0face power.
Stop kidding yourself. Continual swearing just emphasises your
impotence.
But you seem to be excluding your own wild claims from that principle. I >>> am calling you out as a hypocrite.
But I'll try putting the question to you again:
Do you accept that you have never supplied any evidence for your
claims that all general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic
graph, and that this task is feasible to accomplish?
The proof of my claims comes from comprehending
the exact meaning of my words.
You are careful do (re)define words such that they have no exact meaning.
You always disagree with everything that I say instead
of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking
doing that.
Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject
matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and
even agree with.
Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, it doesn't thereby become
true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can
be proven.
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
You always disagree with everything that I say instead
of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking
doing that.
Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject
I am replacing all of that nit wit.
--matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and
even agree with.
Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood, it doesn't thereby become true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can
be proven.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
You always disagree with everything that I say instead
of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking
doing that.
Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject
I am replacing all of that nit wit.
You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won't
affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike.
matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and
even agree with.
Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood,
it doesn't thereby become
true. It's one way to lead to a contradiction, from which anything can
be proven.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/14/2026 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:For the third time, consider correcting the grammatical error in the
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic
On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:[ .... ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won'tI am replacing all of that nit wit.You always disagree with everything that I say insteadMaybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject
of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking
doing that.
affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike.
derivation implements semantic entailment
encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That defines a whole new process.It will define something not very interesting in a familiar mathematical category of things. Universal results such as the principle of explosion
You can stipulate 2 + 2 = 5 for all I care. It doesn't render it true.I am stipulating a whole fucking different set of steps.matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and
even agree with.
Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood,
----it doesn't thereby become true. It's one way to lead to a
contradiction, from which anything can be proven.
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:12 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:39 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
You always disagree with everything that I say instead
of trying to understand anything that I say. Quit fucking
doing that.
Maybe when you start trying to understand the mathematical subject
I am replacing all of that nit wit.
You can't. You can stipulate all the falsehoods you want, it won't
affect the fundamental mathematical truths which you so dislike.
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic
derivation implements semantic entailment
encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
For the third time, consider correcting the grammatical error in the
above before you copy and paste it again.
That defines a whole new process.
It will define something not very interesting in a familiar mathematical category of things. Universal results such as the principle of explosion
and G||del's Incompleteness Theorem will continue to apply inside it.
it's> even less clear _why_ you're trying to do it.matter, you might begin to say things which others can understand and >>>>> even agree with.
Here's a clue - if you stipulate a falsehood,
I am stipulating a whole fucking different set of steps.
You can stipulate 2 + 2 = 5 for all I care. It doesn't render it true.
It's far from clear precisely what you're trying to stipulate, and
it doesn't thereby become true. It's one way to lead to a
contradiction, from which anything can be proven.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic facts" is not >>>> even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed.-a But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague
half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes' nominalism", which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" entirely caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about deconstructive accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as like the cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" is not >>>>> even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot >>>>> exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague
half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes' nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic facts" is >>>>>> not
even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set cannot >>>>>> exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms. >>>>
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed.-a But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague
half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes' nominalism", >>> which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy.
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts"
is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be
incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set cannot >>>>>>> exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive terms. >>>>>
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague
half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be >>>>> pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes'
nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" entirely >>>> caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and Euclidean >>>> and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about deconstructive >>>> accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as like the >>>> cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy.
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic facts" >>>>>>>> is not
even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set cannot >>>>>>>> exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive
terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed.-a But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's >>>>>> nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is >>>>>> proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague
half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be >>>>>> pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes'
nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" entirely >>>>> caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and implementation", >>>>> of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic" >>>>> and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and Euclidean >>>>> and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as like >>>>> the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy.
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
On 7/14/2026 7:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" >>>>>>>>> is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set >>>>>>>>> cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive
terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's >>>>>>> nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is >>>>>>> proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into >>>>>>> account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague >>>>>>> half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never to be >>>>>>> pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes'
nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's"
entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a >>>>>> parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata", >>>>>> of the theory, before getting into "architecture and implementation", >>>>>> of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic" >>>>>> and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and
Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as
like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy.
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Not when you think these things all the way through.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
Gemini thinks that you are very good with computation.
It looked up your professional work. If this is so and
not just bullshit then you could actually understand the
details of the structure of the Cyc Project and the CycL
language.
On 07/14/2026 05:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic facts" >>>>>>>>>> is not
even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set >>>>>>>>>> cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive >>>>>>>> terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed.-a But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's >>>>>>>> nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is >>>>>>>> proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into >>>>>>>> account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague >>>>>>>> half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never >>>>>>>> to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes'
nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's"
entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a >>>>>>> parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata", >>>>>>> of the theory, before getting into "architecture and
implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless arithmetic" >>>>>>> and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and
Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as
like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy.
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Not when you think these things all the way through.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
Gemini thinks that you are very good with computation.
It looked up your professional work. If this is so and
not just bullshit then you could actually understand the
details of the structure of the Cyc Project and the CycL
language.
I'm a qualified and experienced professional programmer/analyst,
various knowledge inference formats like KIF, RDF, OWL, or
basically usually often enough about 3-tuples of relation
yet for the temporal introducing 5-tuples, are almost never
found salient in the koolaid and the firehose.
That said, ontology is simply organization in knowledge,
it's that simple, not a guarantee itself.
On 7/14/2026 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 02:05, olcott wrote:
It is a stupid idea to leap to detailed design until after the
fundamental architecture has been fully validated.
Not necessarily. There is little risk in designing details that are
known to be necessary or easy to design or helpful to the vaidcation
of the fundamental architecture.
A complete set of "atomic facts" of general knowledge
are necessarily true by definition.
On 7/14/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>> self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>>> question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as >>>>>>>> an example.-a Fred's question was about how are you going to prove >>>>>>>> your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including >>>>>>> medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that >>>>>>> the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/
building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.-a I >>>>>> think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even
remotely
possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you >>>> can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
That is insufficient to ensure that an implementation, if there ever
would be one, would exclude it.
The term "fact" already excludes "lies"
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 16:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence
that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully searching for >>>>>> the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that could have
possibly change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as
an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove
your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With
sufficient disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds
evidence that the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be
envisaging/building. He is writing about his "system" delivering
absolute proven truth.
Not really. He has his own meaning for "true" and related words. The
stipulated basic facts are "true" by his meaning, and therefore proven
in his system. Real world truth is not relevant.
Good points!
Conversing with PO is a bit like trying to get meaning across to somebody
who doesn't have basic English knowledge.
On 7/14/2026 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 16:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>> able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his >>>>>>> basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>> system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE
SYSTEM
is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >>>> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/
building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.
Not really. He has his own meaning for "true" and related words. The
stipulated basic facts are "true" by his meaning, and therefore proven
in his system. Real world truth is not relevant.
An empirical fact is information, observation, or
measurement derived directly from sensory experience
or experimentation.
Real world truth <is> the finite set of empirical
"atomic facts" of general knowledge. This is the
foundational basis of my whole system.
On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>> that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that >>>>>>> this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, any >>>>> more
than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized in my >>>>> last post.-a They cannot thus be regarded as true.-a Do you accept this? >>>
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions
as true seems to indicate that your understanding of
correct reasoning is very woefully deficient.
On 7/14/2026 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims that
all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting
evidence" you did not exclude your own claims.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
My assertions prove themselves completely true on the
basis of the exact meaning of their words. When people
reject my Stipulative definitions of my terms these
people are stupidly incorrect.
On 7/14/2026 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Of course they can, and people often do.
I DID NOT SAY THIS
Claims without supporting evidence cannot be accepted as true.
I SAID THIS.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot be CORRECTLY
accepted as true. PLEASE FUCKING PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION.
-aBut one can say that they
sould not, though that is a matter of opinion.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK A BASELESS ASSERTION IS?
Claims without supporting evidence ARE BASELESS ASSERTIONS.
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost >>>>>>>>>>>> the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>> to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta- >>>>>>>>>>>> years do you think he needs to convince a believer of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>> His system is not able to prove its own correctness, because >>>>>>>>>>>> of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You >>>>>>>> have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used by >>>>>>>> logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have very >>>>>>>> different definitions of many things which is why people keep >>>>>>>> pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't >>>>>> prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any
such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and
the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the >>>>>> premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for >>>>>> the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim >>>>>> doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims
are concerned there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually
establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can >>>>>>>> be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the *mathematical*
definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned with the
mathematical notion of proof since you seem really bothered by
G||del's claim that there are limits on what can actually be proven.
G||del makes no claims whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all
you're concerned about is the legal notion you have no reason to be
bothered by G||del.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole, >>>>>> they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that
they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now >>>>>> do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a >>>>>>>>>> very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means. >>>>>> Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to
conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not
actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his claims,
but that is very different from claiming that the claims have been
disproven in the formal sense.
Andr|-
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>> able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>> construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his >>>>>>>> basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>> system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE
SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no
bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their
freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
On 14/07/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 02:05, olcott wrote:
It is a stupid idea to leap to detailed design until after the
fundamental architecture has been fully validated.
Not necessarily. There is little risk in designing details that are
known to be necessary or easy to design or helpful to the vaidcation
of the fundamental architecture.
A complete set of "atomic facts" of general knowledge
are necessarily true by definition.
No,
if "general knowledge" means what is usually understood to mean.
Much of what is usually considered a part of general knowledge is
in reality uncertain or approximate.
On 14/07/2026 22:45, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the >>>>>>>>>>> elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta- >>>>>>>>>>> years do
you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>>> self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>>>> question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as >>>>>>>>> an example.-a Fred's question was about how are you going to prove >>>>>>>>> your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are >>>>>>>> sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including >>>>>>>> medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient >>>>>>>> disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that >>>>>>>> the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/ >>>>>>> building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven
truth.-a I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even
remotely
possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you >>>>> can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
That is insufficient to ensure that an implementation, if there ever
would be one, would exclude it.
The term "fact" already excludes "lies"
That does not prevent an implementation from presenting a lie as a fact.
On 14/07/2026 22:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 16:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>> able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>> construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his >>>>>>>> basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>> system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. >>>>>> Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE
SYSTEM
is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility >>>>> is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/
building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.
Not really. He has his own meaning for "true" and related words. The
stipulated basic facts are "true" by his meaning, and therefore proven
in his system. Real world truth is not relevant.
An empirical fact is information, observation, or
measurement derived directly from sensory experience
or experimentation.
What is usually coalled "general knowledge" excludes most of those observations. For example, most of the experiments that measured
the ratio of the acceleration of an object to the force to it are
not in "general knowledge" as usually inderstood. The generalized
result that the acceleration is the foce divided by the mass of the
object is generally known, and samewhat less generally is known that
that generalized result is false.
Real world truth <is> the finite set of empirical
"atomic facts" of general knowledge. This is the
foundational basis of my whole system.
No, it is not. Real world truth includes much that is not generally
known.
It is not known whether everything potentially knowable but
so far unknown can be expressed as a finite set of atomic facts.
The unknown is hard to count.
On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>>> that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that >>>>>>>> this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts,
any more
than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized
in my
last post.-a They cannot thus be regarded as true.-a Do you accept >>>>>> this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions
as true seems to indicate that your understanding of
correct reasoning is very woefully deficient.
It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient
basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms
a sufficient basis.
Your "seems to indicate" gives the impression you are trying to deceive
as you don't identify any particular assertion.
On 14/07/2026 22:19, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims
that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>> task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting
evidence" you did not exclude your own claims.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
My assertions prove themselves completely true on the
basis of the exact meaning of their words. When people
reject my Stipulative definitions of my terms these
people are stupidly incorrect.
The scope of a stipulative definition ends when it is contredicted
by another stipulative or other definition.
On 14/07/2026 22:16, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Of course they can, and people often do.
I DID NOT SAY THIS
Claims without supporting evidence cannot be accepted as true.
I SAID THIS.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot be CORRECTLY
accepted as true. PLEASE FUCKING PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION.
-aBut one can say that they
sould not, though that is a matter of opinion.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK A BASELESS ASSERTION IS?
Claims without supporting evidence ARE BASELESS ASSERTIONS.
Correctness with no specification fo the norm to be applied is
a matter of opinion. People don't ususally require logical
soundness but care more about likelyhood of truth. Our instincts
are based on statistics more than on logic.
On 12/07/2026 23:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that >>>>>>>>>>>>> he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>>> to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many >>>>>>>>>>>>> peta- years do you think he needs to convince a believer of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules are >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> His system is not able to prove its own correctness, >>>>>>>>>>>>> because of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You >>>>>>>>> have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used >>>>>>>>> by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have >>>>>>>>> very different definitions of many things which is why people >>>>>>>>> keep pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't >>>>>>> prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any >>>>> such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and
the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the >>>>>>> premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your >>>>>>> claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical
claims are concerned there is the additional problem that while >>>>>>> logic can establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can >>>>>>>>> be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the
*mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned
with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem really
bothered by G||del's claim that there are limits on what can
actually be proven. G||del makes no claims whatsoever about legal
proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal notion you
have no reason to be bothered by G||del.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black
hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim >>>>>>> that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And >>>>>>> we now do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have >>>>>>>>>>> a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means. >>>>>>> Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to >>>>> conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not
actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his
claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims
have been disproven in the formal sense.
Andr|-
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>> able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>> construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>> about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his >>>>>>>>> basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>> system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>>>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>> question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an
example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>> SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no
bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their
freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
On 7/15/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
In other words you want a dictator that will kill millions
and you will lie about these things to make it come true.
No matter what the fuck assertion is presented without
a basis in fact should never be accepted as true until
such a basis in fact has been established doing otherwise
can kill off the whole fucking planet and is thus
terribly evil.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will >>>>>>>>>> be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in >>>>>>>>>> 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>>> construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>> about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>> his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>> His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>>>>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>>> question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an
example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>>> SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>>> bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>>> been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their
freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
[ .... ]
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
In other words you want a dictator that will kill millions
and you will lie about these things to make it come true.
Your reading comprehension is not even at a basic level. Mikko said
nothing about any dictator, never mind any who're going to "kill
millions". He was questioning your highly idiosyncratic reasoning
ability.
No matter what the fuck assertion is presented without
a basis in fact should never be accepted as true until
such a basis in fact has been established doing otherwise
can kill off the whole fucking planet and is thus
terribly evil.
You need to learn to talk politely to other people too, not just me.
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will >>>>>>>>>>> be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in >>>>>>>>>>> 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>> to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>> about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>>> his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>> His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>>>>>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>>>> question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>> example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your
ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>>>> bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>>>> been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their
freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>>>> to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
Apparently you're rather irony-impaired.
You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence.
The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you.
Andr|-
On 7/15/2026 11:50 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
[ .... ]
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
In other words you want a dictator that will kill millions
and you will lie about these things to make it come true.
Your reading comprehension is not even at a basic level. Mikko said nothing about any dictator, never mind any who're going to "kill
millions". He was questioning your highly idiosyncratic reasoning
ability.
No matter what the fuck assertion is presented without
a basis in fact should never be accepted as true until
such a basis in fact has been established doing otherwise
can kill off the whole fucking planet and is thus
terribly evil.
You need to learn to talk politely to other people too, not just me.
I really want to prevent the Earth from being killed
by dangerous lies and everyone here seemed to think
that dangerous lies that can kill the planet are just
fine.
I say this on the basis that no one accepted the following as a truism:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
It seems that most people are only here to be
disagreeable and play head games otherwise
there would be agreement on crucial points
such as the one above.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 11:50 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
[ .... ]
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
In other words you want a dictator that will kill millions
and you will lie about these things to make it come true.
Your reading comprehension is not even at a basic level. Mikko said
nothing about any dictator, never mind any who're going to "kill
millions". He was questioning your highly idiosyncratic reasoning
ability.
No matter what the fuck assertion is presented without
a basis in fact should never be accepted as true until
such a basis in fact has been established doing otherwise
can kill off the whole fucking planet and is thus
terribly evil.
You need to learn to talk politely to other people too, not just me.
I really want to prevent the Earth from being killed
by dangerous lies and everyone here seemed to think
that dangerous lies that can kill the planet are just
fine.
You could help on a small scale by yourself not lying on this newsgroup.
I say this on the basis that no one accepted the following as a truism:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I have explicitly accepted this elsewhere on this thread, or maybe in
another thread.
You yourself have been making wild claims for a long time without
supplying adequate supporting evidence, yet you seem to expect others to accept them as true. That is inconsistent on your part.
It seems that most people are only here to be
disagreeable and play head games otherwise
there would be agreement on crucial points
such as the one above.
Myself, I care about the truth, which is why I question your
unsubstantiated claims.
That truth includes the theorems proven by the
great mathematicians of the past. I don't particularly expect you to understand that.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
On 7/15/2026 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
That does not prevent an implementation from presenting a lie as a fact.
Yes it fucking does.
On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>> will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will >>>>>>>>>>>> be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections >>>>>>>>>>>> in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>> to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>>> about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>>>> his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>> His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>>>>>>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>> His question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>> example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>> no bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many
times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched >>>>>> to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
Apparently you're rather irony-impaired.
You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence.
The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you.
Andr|-
I am asking people to accept truisms such as
this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing
with every single point:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
On 7/14/2026 9:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic facts" >>>>>>>>>>> is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set >>>>>>>>>>> cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive >>>>>>>>> terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway.
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so there's >>>>>>>>> nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that it is >>>>>>>>> proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into >>>>>>>>> account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague >>>>>>>>> half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never >>>>>>>>> to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes'
nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's"
entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a >>>>>>>> parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata", >>>>>>>> of the theory, before getting into "architecture and
implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless
arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and
Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as >>>>>>>> like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy.
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Not when you think these things all the way through.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
Gemini thinks that you are very good with computation.
It looked up your professional work. If this is so and
not just bullshit then you could actually understand the
details of the structure of the Cyc Project and the CycL
language.
I'm a qualified and experienced professional programmer/analyst,
various knowledge inference formats like KIF, RDF, OWL, or
basically usually often enough about 3-tuples of relation
yet for the temporal introducing 5-tuples, are almost never
found salient in the koolaid and the firehose.
That said, ontology is simply organization in knowledge,
it's that simple, not a guarantee itself.
Yes so you can understand these things. A properly
formed knowledge ontology that is sufficiently
populated does directly facilitate making some
subset of all truth expressed in language computable.
The relative taste of strawberries to blueberries
cannot be expressed in language.
On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>>> to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>>>>> his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>> His question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>> example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>> no bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>> times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas
switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
Apparently you're rather irony-impaired.
You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence.
The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. >>>
Andr|-
I am asking people to accept truisms such as
this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing
with every single point:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism.
And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims
when you give no supporting evidence.
Instead, you always assert that your claims are 'true on the basis of
the meanings of the words', but that's not how evidence actually works.
the only statements that are true based solely on the meanings of their words are trivially uninteresting claims.
Try to find any examples of
academic papers where the only supporting evidence they offer is that
their claims are 'true on the basis of the meanings of the words'. You
won't find any because that simply doesn't cut it.
People reject your claims because (1) your words are too vaguely defined
to be useful,
and (2) even when we do sort out the meanings of your
words the statements you make simply don't follow coherently from those meanings.
On top of that the claims you make are overly grandiose, and the more grandiose a claim, the greater the need to supply supporting evidence is.
Andr|-
On 07/14/2026 07:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 9:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic facts" >>>>>>>>>>>> is not
even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive >>>>>>>>>> terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed.-a But it's probably wrong, anyway. >>>>>>>>>>
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so >>>>>>>>>> there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that >>>>>>>>>> it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it into >>>>>>>>>> account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague >>>>>>>>>> half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never >>>>>>>>>> to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes'
nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" >>>>>>>>> entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie is a >>>>>>>>> parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and desiderata", >>>>>>>>> of the theory, before getting into "architecture and
implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless
arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and >>>>>>>>> Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as >>>>>>>>> like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy. >>>>>>>
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Not when you think these things all the way through.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
Gemini thinks that you are very good with computation.
It looked up your professional work. If this is so and
not just bullshit then you could actually understand the
details of the structure of the Cyc Project and the CycL
language.
I'm a qualified and experienced professional programmer/analyst,
various knowledge inference formats like KIF, RDF, OWL, or
basically usually often enough about 3-tuples of relation
yet for the temporal introducing 5-tuples, are almost never
found salient in the koolaid and the firehose.
That said, ontology is simply organization in knowledge,
it's that simple, not a guarantee itself.
Yes so you can understand these things. A properly
formed knowledge ontology that is sufficiently
populated does directly facilitate making some
subset of all truth expressed in language computable.
The relative taste of strawberries to blueberries
cannot be expressed in language.
Ah, the old "one step forward, two steps back" -
the story being told is old as dirt, the Pythagoreans
told it when their universe of magnitudes was finite ratios,
which makes a lot of sense when there are infinite integers.
The "the relative taste of strawberries to blueberries"
_is_ already an expression in language.
Strawberries are more tart while blueberries lucious,
though both strawberries and blueberries are a bit tart
and lucious, though usually prepared blueberries need
less sugar, strawberries have more vitamin C while blueberries
have more anthocyanins, while both are nutritious and with
also non-nutritional value, less people are allergic to blueberries,
any matter of taste can be expressed in terms of strawberries and blueberries, in a limited sense.
"Colorless green" is an actual account of the dual-tri-stimulus
colorspace of the chromatic and prismatic that monochromatic:
an account that usual textbooks don't have.
I'm a researcher in Foundations not just a "full-stack enterprise dev".
On 7/15/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>>>> that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and >>>>>>>>> that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, >>>>>>> any more
than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized >>>>>>> in my
last post.-a They cannot thus be regarded as true.-a Do you accept >>>>>>> this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions
as true seems to indicate that your understanding of
correct reasoning is very woefully deficient.
It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient
basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms
a sufficient basis.
YES. At least 1/3 of the population accepts despicable
lies as verified facts because they honestly believe
that yelling at someone proves one's actual point.
Your "seems to indicate" gives the impression you are trying to deceive
as you don't identify any particular assertion.
The infinite set of assertions.
On 7/15/2026 2:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>>> His question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>>> example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>>> no bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has
collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>>> times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United
States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas
switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if >>>>>>>> your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
Apparently you're rather irony-impaired.
You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >>>>
The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is
you.
Andr|-
I am asking people to accept truisms such as
this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing
with every single point:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism.
Then you are not bothering to pay 100% perfect
attention to the exact meaning of every word.
That people are not paying attention and totally
obeying the exact meaning of those words is the
key error that allows Nazi propaganda to function.
And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims
when you give no supporting evidence.
My "claims" are proven true by the exact meaning of
my words. It took fools here a few round and rounds
before they even understood that facts are true.
Instead, you always assert that your claims are 'true on the basis of
the meanings of the words', but that's not how evidence actually works.
No that it how 100% perfect proof works.
the only statements that are true based solely on the meanings of
their words are trivially uninteresting claims.
There are 200 petabytes of "atomic facts" that disagree.
Try to find any examples of academic papers where the only supporting
evidence they offer is that their claims are 'true on the basis of the
meanings of the words'. You won't find any because that simply doesn't
cut it.
Everyone else is doing something entirely different.
You don't seems to have a clue of the difference
between analytical truth 5 > 3 and empirical truth
H2O is water.
People reject your claims because (1) your words are too vaguely
defined to be useful,
Total bullshit. These words SPECIFY EXACTLY
WHAT I MEAN:
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
On 7/15/2026 3:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 07:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 9:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition. A "complete set of atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>> facts"
is not
even conceivable. We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem. So such a set >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive >>>>>>>>>>> terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed. But it's probably wrong, anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so >>>>>>>>>>> there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that >>>>>>>>>>> it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it >>>>>>>>>>> into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague >>>>>>>>>>> half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never >>>>>>>>>>> to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes' >>>>>>>>>> nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" >>>>>>>>>> entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie >>>>>>>>>> is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and
desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and
implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless
arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and >>>>>>>>>> Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as >>>>>>>>>> like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy. >>>>>>>>
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Not when you think these things all the way through.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
Gemini thinks that you are very good with computation.
It looked up your professional work. If this is so and
not just bullshit then you could actually understand the
details of the structure of the Cyc Project and the CycL
language.
I'm a qualified and experienced professional programmer/analyst,
various knowledge inference formats like KIF, RDF, OWL, or
basically usually often enough about 3-tuples of relation
yet for the temporal introducing 5-tuples, are almost never
found salient in the koolaid and the firehose.
That said, ontology is simply organization in knowledge,
it's that simple, not a guarantee itself.
Yes so you can understand these things. A properly
formed knowledge ontology that is sufficiently
populated does directly facilitate making some
subset of all truth expressed in language computable.
The relative taste of strawberries to blueberries
cannot be expressed in language.
Ah, the old "one step forward, two steps back" -
the story being told is old as dirt, the Pythagoreans
told it when their universe of magnitudes was finite ratios,
which makes a lot of sense when there are infinite integers.
The "the relative taste of strawberries to blueberries"
_is_ already an expression in language.
Strawberries are more tart while blueberries lucious,
though both strawberries and blueberries are a bit tart
and lucious, though usually prepared blueberries need
less sugar, strawberries have more vitamin C while blueberries
have more anthocyanins, while both are nutritious and with
also non-nutritional value, less people are allergic to blueberries,
any matter of taste can be expressed in terms of strawberries and
blueberries, in a limited sense.
"Colorless green" is an actual account of the dual-tri-stimulus
colorspace of the chromatic and prismatic that monochromatic:
an account that usual textbooks don't have.
I'm a researcher in Foundations not just a "full-stack enterprise dev".
Foundations of math of numbers not Foundations
of every aspect of generic truth itself.
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will >>>>>>>>>> be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in >>>>>>>>>> 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>>> construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>> about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>> his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>> His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>>>>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>>> question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an
example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>>> SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has no >>>>>> bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many times >>>> been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their
freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union,
much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>>> to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all >>>>>>>>>>>>> his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>> His question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>> example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>> no bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has collapsed >>>>>>> may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>> times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United States. At >>>>>>> least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas
switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if your >>>>>>> example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
Apparently you're rather irony-impaired.
You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence.
The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is you. >>>
Andr|-
I am asking people to accept truisms such as
this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing
with every single point:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism.
And the point is you continuously ask people to accept *your* claims
when you give no supporting evidence.
On 7/15/2026 2:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 11:24, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 12:01 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-15 10:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:48 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. >>>>>>>>>>>> His question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an >>>>>>>>>>>> example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your >>>>>>>>>>>> ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish!-a A single example may be proven correct, but that has >>>>>>>>>> no bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
It is a very important example that does determine
the fate of our whole Democracy.
It is not as important as you seem to think. Democracy has
collapsed
may times in many places but has survived elseqhere and has many >>>>>>>> times
been restored where it has collapsed.
It is possible that federal democracy collapses in United
States. At
least some states may try to keep their internal democracy or their >>>>>>>> freedom or both, which may result in disintegration of the union, >>>>>>>> much like happened in Mexico with the consequence that Texas
switched
to another state.
But something unrelated could cause the collapse anyway even if >>>>>>>> your
example question could be fullly convincingly answered.
It seems that most people are too fucking stupid
to get this
I never claimed otherwise, about you or other stupid peaople.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I havn't seen amy people accepting your claims.
We ARE having the rise of the fourth Reich because
too many fucking morons are so fucking stupid that
they accept claims without supporting evidence as
verified facts.
They do this without having any idea what evidence
is and how it works. They are so fucking stupid that
they honestly believe that yelling at someone is how
you prove your point.
Apparently you're rather irony-impaired.
You're asking people to accept your claims without supporting evidence. >>>>
The only one who comes across as yelling at people on this forum is
you.
Andr|-
I am asking people to accept truisms such as
this one as truisms and quit fucking disagreeing
with every single point:
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
I'd agree with that claim, but it's hardly a truism.
Then you are not bothering to pay 100% perfect
attention to the exact meaning of every word.
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Do you have any idea why Comenius language was never implemented?
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about >>>>>> the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>>> facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His
question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM >>>> is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.-a I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely
possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
On 7/15/2026 3:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 07:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 9:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 03:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 02:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/14/2026 05:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 4:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
Facts are true by definition.-a A "complete set of atomic >>>>>>>>>>>>> facts"
is not
even conceivable.-a We know such a set, if consistent, would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete by G||del's Incompleteness Theorem.-a So such a set >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
exist.
All undecidability is unmasked as semantic
incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.
Meaningless word salad.
When we stupidly have fucked up ways for determining
what is true we get fucked up results.
You should revert to expressing your thoughts in less offensive >>>>>>>>>>> terms.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
It doesn't.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
Grammatically ill-formed.-a But it's probably wrong, anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>
By this measure PA reo G is simply false.
You aren't using that symbol with its standard meaning, so >>>>>>>>>>> there's
nothing to reply to.
That you make sure to refuse to begin to understand
any of the details of this is no rebuttal at all.
You should learn G||del's Incompleteness Theorem, accept that >>>>>>>>>>> it is
proven, and amend your somewhat ridiculous claims to take it >>>>>>>>>>> into
account.
Since you refuse to accept any of the definitions
of my terms I can't begin to show how they work.
You're attempting to replace precise terms of the art with vague >>>>>>>>>>> half-definitions, probably to be able to equivocate, and never >>>>>>>>>>> to be
pinned down to a precise meaning.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
That seems one of the problems with something like "Hobbes' >>>>>>>>>> nominalism",
which beyond "extreme fictionalism" is like "the Red Queen's" >>>>>>>>>> entirely
caprious judgment, one wondering whether Carroll's court-erie >>>>>>>>>> is a
parody of Hobbes.
Here instead there's perceived the, "requirements and
desiderata",
of the theory, before getting into "architecture and
implementation",
of a, "extreme rationalism", into thinks like "axiomless
arithmetic"
and "axiomless geometry" that gives both the Archimedean and >>>>>>>>>> Euclidean
and the sub- and super- Archimedean and Euclidean, about
deconstructive
accounts then about what arrives for universals.
Carroll or Dodgson's mathematical infinitesimals are rather as >>>>>>>>>> like the
cumulative hierarchy of ordinals in reverse, ....
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
Very difficult can understand yet the above completely
proves my whole point. As a concrete example of semantic
entailment specified syntactically we have expressions
written in the CycL ontology language.
To everyone that cannot possibly begin to understand
anything about semantics outside of model theory, you
just don't have a single clue about the actual full
field of semantics.
Doesn't say much, that's just the definition of entailment,
and omits monotonicity, which makes for the not the inconstancy. >>>>>>>>
It all a {meaning of words} thing that everyone here
cannot begin to understand because they are totally
stuck on numbers.
Formal semantics of linguistics of formalized natural
language does not have one damn thing to do with numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar
I avoided all of those big words so that I would not make
everyone here look like a complete ignoramus.
Saying "Montague grammar" picks up "material implication"
and "ex falso quodlibet" a.k.a. "principle of explosion",
so, it's your own foot you're shooting.
Not when you think these things all the way through.
Instead here there are considered "Herbrand semantics".
Montague was just a party-boy flake in the orbit of Tarski.
Gemini thinks that you are very good with computation.
It looked up your professional work. If this is so and
not just bullshit then you could actually understand the
details of the structure of the Cyc Project and the CycL
language.
I'm a qualified and experienced professional programmer/analyst,
various knowledge inference formats like KIF, RDF, OWL, or
basically usually often enough about 3-tuples of relation
yet for the temporal introducing 5-tuples, are almost never
found salient in the koolaid and the firehose.
That said, ontology is simply organization in knowledge,
it's that simple, not a guarantee itself.
Yes so you can understand these things. A properly
formed knowledge ontology that is sufficiently
populated does directly facilitate making some
subset of all truth expressed in language computable.
The relative taste of strawberries to blueberries
cannot be expressed in language.
Ah, the old "one step forward, two steps back" -
the story being told is old as dirt, the Pythagoreans
told it when their universe of magnitudes was finite ratios,
which makes a lot of sense when there are infinite integers.
The "the relative taste of strawberries to blueberries"
_is_ already an expression in language.
Strawberries are more tart while blueberries lucious,
though both strawberries and blueberries are a bit tart
and lucious, though usually prepared blueberries need
less sugar, strawberries have more vitamin C while blueberries
have more anthocyanins, while both are nutritious and with
also non-nutritional value, less people are allergic to blueberries,
any matter of taste can be expressed in terms of strawberries and
blueberries, in a limited sense.
"Colorless green" is an actual account of the dual-tri-stimulus
colorspace of the chromatic and prismatic that monochromatic:
an account that usual textbooks don't have.
I'm a researcher in Foundations not just a "full-stack enterprise dev".
Foundations of math of numbers not Foundations
of every aspect of generic truth itself.
On 7/15/2026 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:45, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:37, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>> will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the >>>>>>>>>>>> elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta- >>>>>>>>>>>> years do
you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>>>>> question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just >>>>>>>>>> used as
an example.-a Fred's question was about how are you going to prove >>>>>>>>>> your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are >>>>>>>>> sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including >>>>>>>>> medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient >>>>>>>>> disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence >>>>>>>>> that
the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/ >>>>>>>> building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven
truth.-a I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even >>>>>>>> remotely
possible.
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) >>>>>> you
can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
That is insufficient to ensure that an implementation, if there ever
would be one, would exclude it.
The term "fact" already excludes "lies"
That does not prevent an implementation from presenting a lie as a fact.
Yes it fucking does.
On 7/15/2026 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 16:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>>> able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 >>>>>>>>> because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>> construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>> about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you >>>>>>>>> think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his >>>>>>>>> basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>> system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>>>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question.-a His >>>>>>> question
wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an
example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE >>>>>>> SYSTEM
is correct?
The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's
responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that >>>>>> the system is incorrect.
That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/
building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth.
Not really. He has his own meaning for "true" and related words. The
stipulated basic facts are "true" by his meaning, and therefore proven >>>> in his system. Real world truth is not relevant.
An empirical fact is information, observation, or
measurement derived directly from sensory experience
or experimentation.
What is usually coalled "general knowledge" excludes most of those
observations. For example, most of the experiments that measured
the ratio of the acceleration of an object to the force to it are
not in "general knowledge" as usually inderstood. The generalized
result that the acceleration is the foce divided by the mass of the
object is generally known, and samewhat less generally is known that
that generalized result is false.
Real world truth <is> the finite set of empirical
"atomic facts" of general knowledge. This is the
foundational basis of my whole system.
No, it is not. Real world truth includes much that is not generally
known.
The knowledge subset of truth.
-aIt is not known whether everything potentially knowable but
so far unknown can be expressed as a finite set of atomic facts.
The unknown is hard to count.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
does not include any unknowns.
On 7/15/2026 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:22, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 23:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 12:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims >>>>>>>>> that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and >>>>>>>>> that this
task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
Consistency has never been one of the properties of your posts, >>>>>>> any more
than exactness of expression, or intellectual soundness.
I am saying that a key element of the generic
process of dividing truth from lies requires
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any evidence for your claims, summarized >>>>>>> in my
last post.-a They cannot thus be regarded as true.-a Do you accept >>>>>>> this?
THIS IS A BASIC LAW OF TRUTH ITSELF
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Trying to have a sensible conversation with you is exhausting.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
That you thought it is OK to accept baseless assertions
as true seems to indicate that your understanding of
correct reasoning is very woefully deficient.
It is OK to accept as a true a statement presented without sufficient
basis if what one already knows together with what is presented forms
a sufficient basis.
YES. At least 1/3 of the population accepts despicable
lies as verified facts because they honestly believe
that yelling at someone proves one's actual point.
On 7/15/2026 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:19, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere >>>>>>>> at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
You have never supplied any supporting evidence for your claims
that all
general knowledge can be organised as an acyclic graph, and that this >>>>>> task is feasible to accomplish.
I am not talking about my claims.
You are. Above, when you said "Claims without supporting
evidence" you did not exclude your own claims.
A baseless assertion is a statement or claim presented
as a fact without any supporting evidence, data, or
logical reasoning.
My assertions prove themselves completely true on the
basis of the exact meaning of their words. When people
reject my Stipulative definitions of my terms these
people are stupidly incorrect.
The scope of a stipulative definition ends when it is contredicted
by another stipulative or other definition.
P <semantically entails> Q means syntactic derivation
implements semantic entailment encoded in syntactically
the language. This is the only inference steps allowed.
The scope of the above is everything that I ever
say in the future includes the above in its scope.
On 7/15/2026 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:16, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 22:31, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election >>>>>>>>>>>> fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves >>>>>>>>>>>> the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
It would be if Olcott could prove that he has looked wverywhere
at the same time and that he found none. But he nvere proves
anything so odn't expect any proof now.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Of course they can, and people often do.
I DID NOT SAY THIS
Claims without supporting evidence cannot be accepted as true.
I SAID THIS.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot be CORRECTLY
accepted as true. PLEASE FUCKING PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION.
-aBut one can say that they
sould not, though that is a matter of opinion.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK A BASELESS ASSERTION IS?
Claims without supporting evidence ARE BASELESS ASSERTIONS.
Correctness with no specification fo the norm to be applied is
a matter of opinion. People don't ususally require logical
soundness but care more about likelyhood of truth. Our instincts
are based on statistics more than on logic.
OK so you have no idea what a baseless assertion is.
Every assertion must be tied to a specific set of
facts that make it true or it is a baseless assertion.
It have be a horrifically terrible mistake to accept
a baseless assertion as true.
On 7/12/2026 2:50 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 13:29, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
Nobody has looked everywhere.
Challenge people to provide some and they fail.
If people fail, that simply means that they have failed. It does not
provide proof of the absence of evidence.
Do everything you can to find it and fail.
Again, that just means you failed; it isn't proof, at least not in the
mathematical sense. These might suffice to meet a legal burden of
proof, but that's an entirely different animal.
That not one single human being on the planet
ever provided any evidence of election fraud
that could possibly have changed the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election is the strongest
possible proof that no such evidence exists.
On 7/15/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 23:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peta- years do you think he needs to convince a believer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own
correctness, because of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You >>>>>>>>>> have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used >>>>>>>>>> by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have >>>>>>>>>> very different definitions of many things which is why people >>>>>>>>>> keep pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It
doesn't prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of
any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence >>>>>> and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be >>>>>>>> false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where >>>>>>>> empirical claims are concerned there is the additional problem >>>>>>>> that while logic can establish the validity of an argument,
logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can >>>>>>>>>> be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the
*mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned >>>>>> with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem really
bothered by G||del's claim that there are limits on what can
actually be proven. G||del makes no claims whatsoever about legal >>>>>> proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal notion you
have no reason to be bothered by G||del.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black
hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to
claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be
false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have >>>>>>>>>>>> a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually
means. Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings
to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not >>>>>> actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is >>>>>> simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his
claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims
have been disproven in the formal sense.
Andr|-
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
In other words you want a dictator that will kill millions
and you will lie about these things to make it come true.
No matter what the fuck assertion is presented without
a basis in fact should never be accepted as true until
such a basis in fact has been established doing otherwise
can kill off the whole fucking planet and is thus
terribly evil.
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
[ .... ]
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Unsound reasoning as there might be people who have evidence and
perhaps even a conclusive proof but also have a strong motivation
to keep that evidence secret.
In other words you want a dictator that will kill millions
and you will lie about these things to make it come true.
Your reading comprehension is not even at a basic level. Mikko said
nothing about any dictator, never mind any who're going to "kill
millions". He was questioning your highly idiosyncratic reasoning
ability.
No matter what the fuck assertion is presented without
a basis in fact should never be accepted as true until
such a basis in fact has been established doing otherwise
can kill off the whole fucking planet and is thus
terribly evil.
You need to learn to talk politely to other people too, not just me.
On 7/15/2026 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 02:05, olcott wrote:
It is a stupid idea to leap to detailed design until after the
fundamental architecture has been fully validated.
Not necessarily. There is little risk in designing details that are
known to be necessary or easy to design or helpful to the vaidcation
of the fundamental architecture.
A complete set of "atomic facts" of general knowledge
are necessarily true by definition.
No,
If you are too fucking stupid to know that facts
must be true then you are too fucking stupid.
--if "general knowledge" means what is usually understood to mean.
Much of what is usually considered a part of general knowledge is
in reality uncertain or approximate.
There just aren't
enough bits of paper to write down the "complete" set of general
knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't enough people or machines
to do it.
On 2026-07-15 14:34, olcott wrote:
There are 200 petabytes of "atomic facts" that disagree.
The 200 petabytes of atomic facts that you keep talking about exists
only in your imagination.
On 13/07/2026 17:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
There just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete"
set of general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't
enough people or machines to do it.
You only have to write down the things that haven't already been written down. We've been writing things down for millenia.
----
Tristan Wibberley
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 17:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
There just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete"
set of general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't
enough people or machines to do it.
You only have to write down the things that haven't already been written
down. We've been writing things down for millenia.
There's no "only" about unknown knowledge. Around a week ago, I pointed
out in this newsgroup, there are around 10^20 stars in the visible
universe (source: Wikipedia's article on galaxies). Many of these
stars will have planets. "Compelete" general knowledge would involve describing those stars and planets to at least the same degree of detail
as current descriptions of the Sun and Earth. This is such a big task
that it is impossible even in principle, not just in practice.
On 2026-07-13 14:48, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 3:17 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Comenius language
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
That remains to be shown.
Maybe you think that actual facts might not be true?
How exactly do you plan on establishing which things are actual facts?
Often, the facts are disputed. Why should anyone trust your particular
table of 'atomic facts'? Garbage in, garbage out.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
I think it's a highly pertinent question.
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 17:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
There just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete"
set of general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't
enough people or machines to do it.
You only have to write down the things that haven't already been written
down. We've been writing things down for millenia.
There's no "only" about unknown knowledge.
On 17/07/2026 13:43, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 17:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
There just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete"
set of general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't
enough people or machines to do it.
You only have to write down the things that haven't already been
written down. We've been writing things down for millenia.
There's no "only" about unknown knowledge.
The thing about "unknown" things is that they're not knowledge, they're unknowledge instead.
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing down the
complete set of atomic facts of general knowledge has already been
accomplished then the table has been built so that truth can just
be looked up.
----
Tristan Wibberley
On 7/13/2026 1:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 12.jul.2026 om 18:23 schreef olcott:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in
2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all
his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
Any system that is only a set of true statements
is inherently correct.
So, you think that the correctness your is part of your system that
contains all knowledge?
Is the sentence: 'Olcott's system is correct' accepted or rejected by
your system?
Depending on the answer our system either has a self reference, or it
is incomplete.
It is just an example to show the inherent inconsistency in your
reasoning.
The set of all knowledge is infinite.
The set of all general knowledge is a finite list.
Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 17/07/2026 13:43, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 17:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
There just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete"
set of general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren't
enough people or machines to do it.
You only have to write down the things that haven't already been
written down. We've been writing things down for millenia.
There's no "only" about unknown knowledge.
The thing about "unknown" things is that they're not knowledge, they're
unknowledge instead.
Let's go back to Peter Olcott's words:
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing down the
complete set of atomic facts of general knowledge has already been >>>>>> accomplished then the table has been built so that truth can just
be looked up.
He was talking about "complete .... general knowledge". I suppose we
could quibble about the finer points of English usage a fair bit, but to
me, what he was trying to propose includes _all_ general knowledge, not merely a small but continually increasing subset of it.
Basically, I got the impression that [Olcott] simply wanted to treat anything that was actually known as an 'axiom' of his system and all his system
does is check to see whether a particular claim is an axiom or not
(making his system entirely uninteresting since it could never produce
new knowledge). This would seem to imply that his set of 'axioms' was
not fixed but rather something that continuously changed over time.
On 22/07/2026 18:10, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
Basically, I got the impression that [Olcott] simply wanted to treat anything
that was actually known as an 'axiom' of his system and all his system
does is check to see whether a particular claim is an axiom or not
(making his system entirely uninteresting since it could never produce
new knowledge). This would seem to imply that his set of 'axioms' was
not fixed but rather something that continuously changed over time.
I thought he might also use relations stated within that knowledge as inference steps, and allowed his system to find everything true as a
result of the inconsistencies.
It's interesting in some respects: what is a system built from the body
of general knowledge like?
On 2026-07-21 10:36, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Perhaps it's more likely he's never really thought this through. With
Tristan WibberleyActually, I got the distinct impression that when he talked about
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 17/07/2026 13:43, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Let's go back to Peter Olcott's words:
Tristan WibberleyThe thing about "unknown" things is that they're not knowledge, they're
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 13/07/2026 17:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:There's no "only" about unknown knowledge.
There just aren't enough bits of paper to write down the "complete" >>>>> set of general knowledge, and even if there were, there aren'tYou only have to write down the things that haven't already been
enough people or machines to do it.
written down. We've been writing things down for millenia.
unknowledge instead.
He was talking about "complete .... general knowledge". I suppose weOnce one assumes that the massive task of writing down the
complete set of atomic facts of general knowledge has already been >>>>>> accomplished then the table has been built so that truth can just >>>>>> be looked up.
could quibble about the finer points of English usage a fair bit, but to me, what he was trying to propose includes _all_ general knowledge, not merely a small but continually increasing subset of it.
general knowledge, he was explicitly restricting this to things known by someone (though it was never clear exactly clear how many people would
have to know something before it became part of general knowledge, or
how he would deal with contradictions that might arise).
This seemed clear from his treatment of problems which lack a knownOK, I missed the implications of that.
solution such as the Goldback Conjecture, which he vacillated between calling 'meaningless' or stating that they were 'outside the scope of general knowledge'.
Basically, I got the impression that he simply wanted to treat anythingYes, this particular usage of the word "axiom" doesn't fit well with its
that was actually known as an 'axiom' of his system and all his system
does is check to see whether a particular claim is an axiom or not
(making his system entirely uninteresting since it could never produce
new knowledge). This would seem to imply that his set of 'axioms' was
not fixed but rather something that continuously changed over time.
Andr|---
Andr|- G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
Basically, I got the impression that [Olcott] simply wanted to treat anything
that was actually known as an 'axiom' of his system and all his system
does is check to see whether a particular claim is an axiom or not
(making his system entirely uninteresting since it could never produce
new knowledge). This would seem to imply that his set of 'axioms' was
not fixed but rather something that continuously changed over time.
Yes, this particular usage of the word "axiom" doesn't fit well with its normal meaning.
On 22/07/2026 22:31, Alan Mackenzie wrote:That's a pedantic dispute about English usage. I'm not sure it belongs
Andr|- G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:Yes it does. A system can have any finitely describable set of its
Basically, I got the impression that [Olcott] simply wanted to treatYes, this particular usage of the word "axiom" doesn't fit well with
anything that was actually known as an 'axiom' of his system and all
his system does is check to see whether a particular claim is an
axiom or not (making his system entirely uninteresting since it
could never produce new knowledge). This would seem to imply that
his set of 'axioms' was not fixed but rather something that
continuously changed over time.
its normal meaning.
statements as axioms (even if that means resorting to axiom schema).
In particular, they can be really dumb choices.
It doesn't fit well with it's normal /purpose/ but the /meaning/ is
barely nuanced.
----
Tristan Wibberley
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 45:25:33 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,372 |