From Newsgroup: sci.logic

On 6/19/2026 6:42 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:

Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.

I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.

Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?

I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.

This is an extremely peculiar position to take.

The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and admit
no ambiguity.

The real reason, I suspect, why you avoid terms of the art is because
you can't be bothered to actually learn what they mean, and instead try
to invent your own meaning "compositionally" (as you've said on several occasions). What you fail to understand is that language isn't
interpreted compositionally; rather, *some* language is interpreted compositionally.

Andr|-

Here are some terms-of-the-art that make perfect sense:
Ever since 2016 PTS has been anchored in Horn Clauses
thus not limited to logical constants.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

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

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

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

From Newsgroup: sci.logic

On 6/20/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/06/2026 02:42, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:

Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.

I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.

Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?

I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.

This is an extremely peculiar position to take.

The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and
admit no ambiguity.

Which is a good reason to avoid them when one needs ambiguity for
deception.

When reverse-engineering a brand new foundation for
mathematics one derives all kinds of new meanings
that have no associated terms.

Now that my reverse-engineering process it finally
complete and finally has a common basis I can start
using terms-of-the-art.

A "well founded justification tree" is probably the
most important idea in Proof Theoretic Semantics yet
PTS itself has a jumble of different terms referring
to this idea that vary by author with no unified term.
I collected them all together yesterday.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

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

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

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

From Newsgroup: sci.logic

On 20/06/2026 17:37, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/06/2026 02:42, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:

On 2026-06-19 12:13, olcott wrote:

On 6/14/2026 7:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 12/05/2026 14:59, olcott wrote:

Olcott thesis: Every element of the body of knowledge
that can be expressed in language can be expressed as
relations between finite strings.

I propose that a concrete counter example to this these
is categorically impossible.

Do you mean a counterexample cannot be "constructed" even when a
constraint on such could be?

I avoid terms-of-the-art because they can be misleading.
knowledge expressed in language is atomic ideas expressed
in language connected together semantically.

This is an extremely peculiar position to take.

The entire reason we have terms of the art is that they, unlike
colloquial English, are precisely defined within a given field and
admit no ambiguity.

Which is a good reason to avoid them when one needs ambiguity for
deception.

When reverse-engineering a brand new foundation for
mathematics one derives all kinds of new meanings
that have no associated terms.

Now that my reverse-engineering process it finally
complete and finally has a common basis I can start
using terms-of-the-art.

A "well founded justification tree" is probably the
most important idea in Proof Theoretic Semantics yet
PTS itself has a jumble of different terms referring
to this idea that vary by author with no unified term.
I collected them all together yesterday.

Nice to see that you don't disagree.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2