From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

We now see ourselves confronted with the ultimate test of the strength
of Olcott's system:
Is the system strong enough to make Olcott change his opinion about A?
Will he accept that we cannot say that A is true?

If no.
If even Olcott himself does accept the truth value of finite strings as
given by his own system, why would we believe that other people will
change their opinion because of the output of the system?

If yes.
If Olcott accepts that we cannot say that A is true, i.e. that his
system is correct, why would anyone change his opinion because of the
output of this system?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Op 13.jul.2026 om 16:15 schreef Fred. Zwarts:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

We now see ourselves confronted with the ultimate test of the strength
of Olcott's system:
Is the system strong enough to make Olcott change his opinion about A?
Will he accept that we cannot say that A is true?

If no.
If even Olcott himself does accept the truth value of finite strings as

does -> does not accept

given by his own system, why would we believe that other people will
change their opinion because of the output of the system?

If yes.
If Olcott accepts that we cannot say that A is true, i.e. that his
system is correct, why would anyone change his opinion because of the
output of this system?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 13/07/2026 17:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

Olcott would include A as a basic fact. He might forget to tell the
system that "Olcott's system" refers to the system itself and not to
some other system.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

Op 13.jul.2026 om 16:18 schreef Fred. Zwarts:

Op 13.jul.2026 om 16:15 schreef Fred. Zwarts:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

We now see ourselves confronted with the ultimate test of the strength
of Olcott's system:
Is the system strong enough to make Olcott change his opinion about A?
Will he accept that we cannot say that A is true?

If no.
If even Olcott himself does accept the truth value of finite strings as

does -> does not accept

given by his own system, why would we believe that other people will
change their opinion because of the output of the system?

If yes.
If Olcott accepts that we cannot say that A is true, i.e. that his
system is correct, why would anyone change his opinion because of the
output of this system?

This means that Olcott's system is unmasked as semantic incoherence or
outside of the body of knowledge.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 7/14/2026 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 13/07/2026 17:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

Olcott would include A as a basic fact. He might forget to tell the
system that "Olcott's system" refers to the system itself and not to
some other system.

Olcott's system is inherently correct because
it only includes the entire body of general
knowledge.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 14/07/2026 11:41, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.jul.2026 om 16:18 schreef Fred. Zwarts:

Op 13.jul.2026 om 16:15 schreef Fred. Zwarts:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

We now see ourselves confronted with the ultimate test of the
strength of Olcott's system:
Is the system strong enough to make Olcott change his opinion about
A? Will he accept that we cannot say that A is true?

If no.
If even Olcott himself does accept the truth value of finite strings as

does -> does not accept

given by his own system, why would we believe that other people will
change their opinion because of the output of the system?

If yes.
If Olcott accepts that we cannot say that A is true, i.e. that his
system is correct, why would anyone change his opinion because of the
output of this system?

This means that Olcott's system is unmasked as semantic incoherence or outside of the body of knowledge.

The system is not but the correctness is; and probably many other
questions about the system, too.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 14/07/2026 21:15, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2026 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 13/07/2026 17:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

Olcott would include A as a basic fact. He might forget to tell the
system that "Olcott's system" refers to the system itself and not to
some other system.

Olcott's system is inherently correct because
it only includes the entire body of general
knowledge.

Considering that most of what is usually called "known" is actually
uncertain or approximate, how large is the body of general knowledge?
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 7/15/2026 1:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 14/07/2026 21:15, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2026 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 13/07/2026 17:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth.

Olcott would include A as a basic fact. He might forget to tell the
system that "Olcott's system" refers to the system itself and not to
some other system.

Olcott's system is inherently correct because
it only includes the entire body of general
knowledge.

Considering that most of what is usually called "known" is actually
uncertain or approximate, how large is the body of general knowledge?

If it is not a verified fact then it is
no kind of knowledge.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 15/07/2026 18:01, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2026 1:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 14/07/2026 21:15, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2026 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 13/07/2026 17:15, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Consider the sentence A: "Olcott's system is correct".
Olcott has confirmed that he thinks that A is true.
However, from what Olcott told us Olcott's system will reject this
finite string A, because of a self-reference.
According to the system, A has no truth value.
So, Olcott and his system do not agree about the truth value of A.

Olcott claims that his system will convince everybody about the truth. >>>>

Olcott would include A as a basic fact. He might forget to tell the
system that "Olcott's system" refers to the system itself and not to
some other system.

Olcott's system is inherently correct because
it only includes the entire body of general
knowledge.

Considering that most of what is usually called "known" is actually
uncertain or approximate, how large is the body of general knowledge?

If it is not a verified fact then it is
no kind of knowledge.

Most people would consider "When a stone is released in air it will
fall down" knowledge btu it is not actually verified as a universal
truth. If you exlude all real world knowledge the usefulnes of your
system is very much restricted.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2