On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done.-a It stretches the word "axiom" to
breaking point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish.-a I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>>>>> "system"
is incoherent and non existent.
[ .... ]
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really?-a That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it.-a 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes.
According to
Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies >>>>>>>> in the
observable universe.-a So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>>>>> 200 bytes
per galaxy.-a In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>>>>> stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8.-a Many of these 10^20 stars will have >>>>>>>> planets,
and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>>>>>> complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and
intellect.
More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily
meaningless big
numbers.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge.-a 200
petabytes for
all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise >>>>>>>> laughable.
No answer?
[ .... ]
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
Hence the Subject: of this thread.
with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning.
That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to
call it (or anything) "incoherent mess".
Many experts have created whole system of logic to
bypass major issues.
Usually it is sufficient to focus on some usual form of the first
order logic. Simpler systems are less powerful and stronger systems
are not as well understood. Some systems are just syntactic sugar
on the ordinary first order logic.
Sometimes it is useful to use second or higher order logic. But there
is no known complete set of valid inference rules like there is for
the first order logic.
No one here sees any of these
issues because they just take everything that they
learned by rote as the gospel.
They don't see the pot filled with gold at the end of rainbow, either.
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
Hypothesize a formal system that can infallibly
determine the truth of any expression of language
pertaining to general knowledge.
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that
could have possibly changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election?
On 7/12/2026 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 04:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which
is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic
meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no
such thing can possibly exist.
If you know you can't do it you should instead try something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
I have done it correctly many times.
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
Hypothesize a formal system that can infallibly
determine the truth of any expression of language
pertaining to general knowledge.
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud that
could have possibly changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election?
The hypothetical system would say "unlikely byt possible" because
that is what the general knowledge is. The general knowledge does
not include any definite proof one way or the other but it does
include enough to conclude that to perform such fraud without
leaving more vedence than is acutally observed is, although not
strictly impossible, very difficult.
But what would that system answer if one asks "What is the easiest
way to cheat significantly in election so that nobody can find any
reason to suspect any fraud or even any attempt to fraud?"
On 12/07/2026 19:10, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 04:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which >>>>>>> is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic
meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no
such thing can possibly exist.
If you know you can't do it you should instead try something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
I have done it correctly many times.
If even correct trying does not give the desired results there is
no point to keep trying.
Of course, once trying, correct or incorrect, would give the desired
result, there still would be no point to keep trying.
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
(P reo -4P) reo Q
P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
If there is nothing semantically relevant about
"The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
"The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
that semantically entails
"Trump is Satan Himself"
then (P reo -4P) reo Q FAILS.
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
(P reo -4P) reo Q
P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
If there is nothing semantically relevant about
"The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
"The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
that semantically entails
"Trump is Satan Himself"
then (P reo -4P) reo Q FAILS.
On 7/13/2026 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:10, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 04:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>>>>>> is not used?
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which >>>>>>>> is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning >>>>>>>> is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic
meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no
such thing can possibly exist.
If you know you can't do it you should instead try something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
I have done it correctly many times.
If even correct trying does not give the desired results there is
no point to keep trying.
Of course, once trying, correct or incorrect, would give the desired
result, there still would be no point to keep trying.
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
On 13/07/2026 19:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Then you should have a good definition for it. Otherwise it will not
have a system with semantic entailment as an important element.
People tend to disagree whenever you claim to explain anything you
don't actually explain. Though it is hard to disagree about the
elements of a non-existing system.
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims about 'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion,
In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment
is a relationship between statements where the truth
of one statement guarantees the truth of another based
strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are
syntactically constructed.
On 13/07/2026 17:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Are you talking about your personal mind?
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
This has a standard and commonplace interpretation
but many might not
feel that interpretation at first read due to how natural English interpretation works, especially when mixed with terms of art.
However, I commend you for excluding concrete systems cryptoexplicitly.
On 13/07/2026 18:52, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims about
'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion,
I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it doesn't include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system.
On 10/07/2026 15:05, olcott wrote:
In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment
is a relationship between statements where the truth
of one statement guarantees the truth of another based
strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are
syntactically constructed.
Unless they mean something about syntactic construction, surely
On 7/14/2026 10:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 13/07/2026 18:52, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims about >>> 'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion,
I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it doesn't
include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system.
None of the issues that arise in math can possibly
exist in this system.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
PA reo G is simply false.
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
On 2026-07-14 11:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 13/07/2026 18:52, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims
about
'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion,
I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it doesn't >>> include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system.
None of the issues that arise in math can possibly
exist in this system.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
PA reo G is simply false.
G||del would agree. He would also agree that PA reo -4G is false.
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
This doesn't follow from the definition you give above. Q *is*
semantically entailed by (P reo -4P).
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 12:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 11:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 13/07/2026 18:52, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims
about
'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion, >>>>
doesn't
include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system.
None of the issues that arise in math can possibly
exist in this system.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
PA reo G is simply false.
G||del would agree. He would also agree that PA reo -4G is false.
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
This doesn't follow from the definition you give above. Q *is*
semantically entailed by (P reo -4P).
Andr|-
Only if you stupidly ignore what {semantically entailed}
means. When you plug English words into P and Q this
becomes completely clear. Also I use reo and not raA that
by itself changes things significantly.
My whole system requires a exactly perfect understanding
of {semantically entailed}. I defined this many times and
everyone moronically disagrees with my Stipulative definitions.
Disagreeing with Stipulative definitions is an error.
Stipulative definition
A stipulative definition is a type of definition
in which a new or currently existing term is given
a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument
or discussion in a given context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
(P reo -4P) reo Q
P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
If there is nothing semantically relevant about
"The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
"The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
that semantically entails
"Trump is Satan Himself"
then (P reo -4P) reo Q FAILS.
It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all tautologies of propositional logic are true. One such tautology is
-4P re? P re? Q.
When using reo, re?, and -4 but no other connectives the most commoly used inference rule is A, -4A re? B reo B, which is usually recarded as self- evidently valid. With this rule one can infer from the assumpions P
and -4P and the tautology -4P re? P re? Q
-a-a-a P, -4P re? P re? Q reo P re? Q
and then
-a-a-a -4P, P re? Q reo Q,
If you want argue that Q does not follow from P and -4P then you must
justify the claim that some of the self-evident truths used above is
false.
On 13/07/2026 19:25, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:10, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 04:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not used?
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic >>>>>>>>>>>> entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which >>>>>>>>> is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning >>>>>>>>> is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic
meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no
such thing can possibly exist.
If you know you can't do it you should instead try something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
I have done it correctly many times.
If even correct trying does not give the desired results there is
no point to keep trying.
Of course, once trying, correct or incorrect, would give the desired
result, there still would be no point to keep trying.
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Then you should have a good definition for it. Otherwise it will not
have a system with semantic entailment as an important element.
People tend to disagree whenever you claim to explain anything you
don't actually explain. Though it is hard to disagree about the
elements of a non-existing system.
On 7/14/2026 12:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 11:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 13/07/2026 18:52, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims
about
'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of Explosion, >>>>
doesn't
include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system.
None of the issues that arise in math can possibly
exist in this system.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
PA reo G is simply false.
G||del would agree. He would also agree that PA reo -4G is false.
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
This doesn't follow from the definition you give above. Q *is*
semantically entailed by (P reo -4P).
Andr|-
Only if you stupidly ignore what {semantically entailed}
means. When you plug English words into P and Q this
becomes completely clear.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 12:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 11:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 13/07/2026 18:52, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-13 10:25, olcott wrote:
The notion of semantic entailment is the most important
element of my whole system. When I explain what this
meaning people only disagree.
Except you *haven't* explained what this means. You've made claims >>>>>> about
'semantic entailment', such as it excludes the Principle of
Explosion,
I don't think it does exclude the principle of explosion, but it
doesn't
include it. I think the syntactic specification may include it or
exclude it by omission if it somehow particularises a closed system. >>>>>
None of the issues that arise in math can possibly
exist in this system.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
P reo Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
PA reo G is simply false.
G||del would agree. He would also agree that PA reo -4G is false.
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
This doesn't follow from the definition you give above. Q *is*
semantically entailed by (P reo -4P).
Andr|-
Only if you stupidly ignore what {semantically entailed}
means. When you plug English words into P and Q this
becomes completely clear. Also I use reo and not raA that
by itself changes things significantly.
I'm going by the definition of 'semantically entailed' which *you* gave.
I fail to see how (P reo -4P) fails to semantically entail Q. Replacing P and Q with English expressions makes no difference to my assessment.
Clearly, by 'semantic entailment' you mean something other than what
your (extremely vague) definition suggests, but what that meaning is
remains a mystery.
My whole system requires a exactly perfect understanding
of {semantically entailed}. I defined this many times and
everyone moronically disagrees with my Stipulative definitions.
Disagreeing with Stipulative definitions is an error.
I'm using your stipulated definition. You also need to realize, though,
that when you stipulate new definitions you need to actually convince
people that those definitions have some value and you've failed to do
that. Your stipulative definition is far too vague to actually be useful.
Stipulative definition
A stipulative definition is a type of definition
in which a new or currently existing term is given
a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument
or discussion in a given context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. How is
it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the
case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
Maybe you have some secret meaning for 'necessarily true' which differs
from everyone else? Or perhaps your meaning of 'semantically entails' includes something which *isn't* present in the definition which you gave.
Andr|-
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. How
is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not
the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
Claims without supporting evidence cannot
be correctly accepted as true.
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. How
is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not
the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. How
is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is
not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards'
necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
You've claimed that 'entail' means
'causes a necessary consequence' To say that P causes Q as a necessary consequence means that it is impossible for P to hold and Q to not hold.
How is it possible for both ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case
that cats are dogs)) to be true and 'birds are lizards' to be false?
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'.
How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it
is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards'
necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
I have a pet cat <semantically entails>
that I have a pet.
I have a pet cat DOES NOT <semantically entail>
that lizards eat strawberries.
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'.
How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it
is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards'
necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
I have a pet cat <semantically entails>
that I have a pet.
I have a pet cat DOES NOT <semantically entail>
that lizards eat strawberries.
You've claimed that 'entail' means 'causes a necessary consequence' To
say that P causes Q as a necessary consequence means that it is
impossible for P to hold and Q to not hold. How is it possible for
both ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) to
be true and 'birds are lizards' to be false?
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'.
How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it >>>>> is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards'
necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
I have a pet cat <semantically entails>
that I have a pet.
I have a pet cat DOES NOT <semantically entail>
that lizards eat strawberries.
But "I have a pet cat" and "I do not have a pet cat" DOES semantically entail "lizard eat strawberries".
If you disagree, show exactly which step in the principle of explosion
is incorrect.
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'.
How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it >>>>> is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards'
necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are lizards' is
a necessary consequence of the contradiction which serves as a premise
On 7/14/2026 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and
(it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' >>>>>> necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
I have a pet cat <semantically entails>
that I have a pet.
I have a pet cat DOES NOT <semantically entail>
that lizards eat strawberries.
But "I have a pet cat" and "I do not have a pet cat" DOES semantically
entail "lizard eat strawberries".
What details about the meaning of the actual words
proves this?
If you disagree, show exactly which step in the principle of explosion
is incorrect.
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and
(it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are lizards' >>>>>> necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are lizards'
is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and >>>>>>> (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are
lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are lizards'
is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which serves as a
premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive does
not make it false.
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are
lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are >>>>>>>> dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds >>>>>>>> are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are
lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which
serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive
does not make it false.
Andr|-
There are no facts about birds that specify
facts about lizard dip shit.
On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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" >>>>>>>>>>
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are
lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are >>>>>>>>> dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds >>>>>>>>> are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are
lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which
serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive
does not make it false.
Andr|-
There are no facts about birds that specify
facts about lizard dip shit.
So what?
The question was whether or not 'birds are lizards' is
semantically entailed by ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that
cats are dogs)), not whether facts about birds specify facts about lizards.
What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not
the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* semantically entail that birds are lizards?
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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" >>>>>>>>>>>
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are
lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes >>>>>>>>>> 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are
lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which
serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive
does not make it false.
Andr|-
There are no facts about birds that specify
facts about lizard dip shit.
So what?
What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic?
Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you.
Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Do you know why the fuck it was created?
The question was whether or not 'birds are lizards' is semantically
entailed by ((cats are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are
dogs)), not whether facts about birds specify facts about lizards.
It is what the fuck semantics means.
What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is
not the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not*
semantically entail that birds are lizards?
On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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" >>>>>>>>>>>>
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes >>>>>>>>>>> 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are
lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which
serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive
does not make it false.
Andr|-
There are no facts about birds that specify
facts about lizard dip shit.
So what?
What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic?
Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same
definition of 'semantic' that you provided.
Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you.
Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly useful
and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been levelled
against it and paraconsistent logics in general.
On 7/14/2026 5:46 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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" >>>>>>>>>>>>>
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes >>>>>>>>>>>> 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are
lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>>>>> serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion counterintuitive >>>>>> does not make it false.
Andr|-
There are no facts about birds that specify
facts about lizard dip shit.
So what?
What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic?
Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same
definition of 'semantic' that you provided.
You stupidly are not.
Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you.
Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly
useful and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been
levelled against it and paraconsistent logics in general.
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:46 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:20, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 5:13 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:32 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 15:11, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:04 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 14:38, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English >>>>>>>>>>>>>> words of P makes the meaning of the English words of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are >>>>>>>>>>>>> lizards'. How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats >>>>>>>>>>>>> are dogs) and (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes 'birds are lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
Did I claim otherwise? Reread what I wrote below. 'birds are >>>>>>>>> lizards' is a necessary consequence of the contradiction which >>>>>>>>> serves as a premise
You must show BY THE MEANING OF THE FUCKING ENGLISH
WORDS HOW THE ENGLISH MEANINGS PROVE THE RESULT.
I fully explained that in the post you responded to.
The fact that you find the principle of explosion
counterintuitive does not make it false.
Andr|-
There are no facts about birds that specify
facts about lizard dip shit.
So what?
What the fuck did you think I meant by semantic?
Cussing isn't going to accomplish anything. I'm using the same
definition of 'semantic' that you provided.
You stupidly are not.
I am. Perhaps you meant something else rather than the overly vague definition you provided. If you answer the question you keep skipping it might clarify things. I repeat it below:
What exactly do you think the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and (it is not
the case that cats are dogs)) actually is? And how does it *not* semantically entail that birds are lizards?
Maybe we need to baby talk this down for you.
Do you know what the fuck relevance logic is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
Yes, I am aware of relevance logic. I don't find it particularly
useful and am quite sympathetic to the criticisms that have been
levelled against it and paraconsistent logics in general.
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though they
can in some instances).
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow
contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though
they can in some instances).
Andr|-
paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating
and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency.
On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow
contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though
they can in some instances).
Andr|-
paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating
and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency.
You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance
logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, but
it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to explosion. In
some cases, however, it does. For example:
(all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal.
is a valid argument in relevance logic.
Andr|-
On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They allow
contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions (though
they can in some instances).
Andr|-
paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating
and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency.
You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance
logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency, but
it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to explosion.
In some cases, however, it does. For example:
(all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal.
is a valid argument in relevance logic.
Andr|-
Different sources have different views yet that seems
to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why
you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic
entailment on the basis of the meaning of words.
There is nothing about
(all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal)
that semantically entails anything at all.
My single system correctly handles the infinite
set of all this crap. My system is not some
weak bullshit that fails on simple cases.
On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They
allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions
(though they can in some instances).
Andr|-
paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating
and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency.
You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance
logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency,
but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to
explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example:
(all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal.
is a valid argument in relevance logic.
Andr|-
Different sources have different views yet that seems
to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why
you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic
entailment on the basis of the meaning of words.
So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're introducing 'full semantic entailment'.
I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning
for that expression simply by combining the meanings of the words.
Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly
On 7/14/2026 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/14/2026 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 3:28 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 13:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 1:27 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 12:08, olcott wrote:
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"
When P and Q are in English then:
P reo Q // is only true when the meaning of the English
words of P makes the meaning of the English words of
Q necessarily true.
So replace P with 'cats are dogs' and Q with 'birds are lizards'. >>>>>>> How is it not the case that the meaning of ((cats are dogs) and >>>>>>> (it is not the case that cats are dogs)) makes 'birds are
lizards' necessarily true?
It fails to show this thus proving POE is incorrect.
You are starting to really try so thanks for that.
How does it fail to show this?
There is not one damned thing about birds that
has any damn thing to do with lizards.
I have a pet cat <semantically entails>
that I have a pet.
I have a pet cat DOES NOT <semantically entail>
that lizards eat strawberries.
But "I have a pet cat" and "I do not have a pet cat" DOES
semantically entail "lizard eat strawberries".
What details about the meaning of the actual words
proves this?
Look at the principle of explosion.-a As I said, if you disagree, show
which step is wrong.
If you disagree, show exactly which step in the principle of
explosion is incorrect.
On 7/14/2026 8:38 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They
allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions >>>>>> (though they can in some instances).
Andr|-
paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating
and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency.
You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance
logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency,
but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to
explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example:
(all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal.
is a valid argument in relevance logic.
Andr|-
Different sources have different views yet that seems
to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why
you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic
entailment on the basis of the meaning of words.
So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're
introducing 'full semantic entailment'.
Only because we were forced to digress to the
less than full semantic entailment of relevance
logic.
I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning for that expression simply
by combining the meanings of the words.
Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly
I will give you the very dumbed down partial
definition.
The meaning of the words of an
expression of language forces the meaning
of the words of another expression of language
to be true.
"I own a pet cat" forces the meaning of
"I own a pet" to be true.
On 2026-07-14 19:56, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 8:38 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 19:23, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 7:42 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 18:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 6:02 PM, Andr|- G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-14 16:56, olcott wrote:
paraconsistent logics // is a terrible misnomer for logic
system that prevents contradictions from being formed.
Apparently you don't know what a paraconsistent logic is. They
allow contradictions. They simply don't always lead to explosions >>>>>>> (though they can in some instances).
Andr|-
paraconsistent logic means inconsistency tolerating
and Relevance logic does not tolerate any inconsistency.
You're simply mistaken here. Have you actually read up on relevance >>>>> logic beyond a simple web search? It does allow for inconsistency,
but it is set up so that inconsistency doesn't always lead to
explosion. In some cases, however, it does. For example:
(all men are mortal) & (no men are mortal) -> some men are mortal.
is a valid argument in relevance logic.
Andr|-
Different sources have different views yet that seems
to be an edge case for relevance logic. That is why
you need to quit dodging the notion of full semantic
entailment on the basis of the meaning of words.
So now instead of talking about 'semantic entailment' you're
introducing 'full semantic entailment'.
Only because we were forced to digress to the
less than full semantic entailment of relevance
logic.
That certainly doesn't clarify the purpose of 'full'. In what sense does relevance logic not deal with 'full' semantic entailment whereas yours
does?
I'm sorry, but I can't derive any meaning for that expression simply
by combining the meanings of the words.
Both your definition of 'semantic' and of 'entailment' are horridly
I will give you the very dumbed down partial
definition.
Nobody here is interested in a dumbed down or partial definition.
Everyone who is pressing you on this point wants a *precise* definition
The meaning of the words of an
expression of language forces the meaning
of the words of another expression of language
to be true.
The meanings of the words in 'all men are mortal and no man is mortal'
On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
(P reo -4P) reo Q
P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
If there is nothing semantically relevant about
"The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
"The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
that semantically entails
"Trump is Satan Himself"
then (P reo -4P) reo Q FAILS.
It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all
tautologies of propositional logic are true. One such tautology is
-4P re? P re? Q.
I am completely and totally tossing every little bit
of ALL of that out on its ass.
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
This has a standard and commonplace interpretation
That is totally wrong.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
On 14/07/2026 21:47, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about
what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
(P reo -4P) reo Q
P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
If there is nothing semantically relevant about
"The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
"The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
that semantically entails
"Trump is Satan Himself"
then (P reo -4P) reo Q FAILS.
It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all
tautologies of propositional logic are true.
One such tautology is
-4P re? P re? Q.
I am completely and totally tossing every little bit
of ALL of that out on its ass.
I.e., you retract your earlier claims that every tautology is true.
On 14/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
This has a standard and commonplace interpretation
That is totally wrong.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
Usually, when a new concept is presented, it is compared to nearest
existing concepts and the similarities and differences are analuzed.
For example, you could explain how your "semantic entailment"
relates to G||del's completeness theorem of the first order logic.
On 7/15/2026 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:Then that "formal" language will be a natural language, and you lose all
On 14/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote:There is nothing like it. It inherently always has full
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:Usually, when a new concept is presented, it is compared to nearest existing concepts and the similarities and differences are analuzed.
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:That is totally wrong.
P reo Q where the rules of inference are onlyThis has a standard and commonplace interpretation
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
natural language semantics directly in its formal language.
You're wrong, there. G||del's Incompleteness Theorem applies in anyFor example, you could explain how your "semantic entailment"It utterly tosses every aspect of logic out the door
relates to G||del's completeness theorem of the first order logic.
and starts over from scratch.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically} is
the only inference step allowed, thus everything
anyone ever learned about logic does not apply.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
This has a standard and commonplace interpretation
That is totally wrong.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
Usually, when a new concept is presented, it is compared to nearest
existing concepts and the similarities and differences are analuzed.
There is nothing like it. It inherently always has full
natural language semantics directly in its formal language.
Then that "formal" language will be a natural language,
and you lose all
the advantages of what formal languages are designed for.
For example, you could explain how your "semantic entailment"
relates to G||del's completeness theorem of the first order logic.
It utterly tosses every aspect of logic out the door
and starts over from scratch.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically} is
the only inference step allowed, thus everything
anyone ever learned about logic does not apply.
You're wrong, there.
G||del's Incompleteness Theorem applies in any
system of logic
which is consistent and has arithmetic. That includes
systems of illogic, too.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 14/07/2026 18:20, olcott wrote:
(P reo -4P) reo Q is simply false.
Unless the system contains no statements "reo (P reo -4P)" then I correctly infer that there are no axioms. If there is an axiom A along with such statements then (P reo -4P) reo A which is not false in that case.
All of propositional logic it totally tossed out
on its ass. If a propositional variable does not
have an English statement for meaning then it counts
as meaningless.
On 7/15/2026 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 21:47, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 13/07/2026 19:19, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2026 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 19:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have always plugged actual English sentences into
propositional variables to see if the inference still
makes sense. That is the easiest way to see that the
principle of explosion does not make sense.
There is the problem that you often say "does not make sense" about >>>>>> what others say "makes sense" and soemtimes the converse.
(P reo -4P) reo Q
P = "The Moon is made from Green Cheese"
Q = "Trump is Satan Himself"
If there is nothing semantically relevant about
"The Moon is made from Green Cheese" and
"The Moon is NOT made from Green Cheese"
that semantically entails
"Trump is Satan Himself"
then (P reo -4P) reo Q FAILS.
It is usually assumed, and oten regarded as self-evident, that all
tautologies of propositional logic are true.
I am utterly getting rid of propositional logic
and replacing the propositional variables with
atomic sentences.
On 7/15/2026 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
This has a standard and commonplace interpretation
That is totally wrong.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
Usually, when a new concept is presented, it is compared to nearest
existing concepts and the similarities and differences are analuzed.
There is nothing like it. It inherently always has full
natural language semantics directly in its formal language.
It utterly tosses every aspect of logic out the door
and starts over from scratch.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically} is
the only inference step allowed, thus everything
anyone ever learned about logic does not apply.
On 7/15/2026 2:21 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/2026 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 14/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:
P reo Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
This has a standard and commonplace interpretation
That is totally wrong.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
Usually, when a new concept is presented, it is compared to nearest
existing concepts and the similarities and differences are analuzed.
There is nothing like it. It inherently always has full
natural language semantics directly in its formal language.
Then that "formal" language will be a natural language,
Not is will not. Its formal language is CycL or equivalent.
-aand you lose all
the advantages of what formal languages are designed for.
For example, you could explain how your "semantic entailment"
relates to G||del's completeness theorem of the first order logic.
It utterly tosses every aspect of logic out the door
and starts over from scratch.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically} is
the only inference step allowed, thus everything
anyone ever learned about logic does not apply.
You're wrong, there.
I am stipulating the properties of my system
disagreement with stipulative definitions is incorrect.
-aG||del's Incompleteness Theorem applies in any
system of logic
My systems tosses every aspect of logic out on its
ass and replaces it with inherently correct reasoning.
which is consistent and has arithmetic.-a That includes
systems of illogic, too.
When he said this he did not understand that an
entirely different framework could be devised.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/15/2026 2:21 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Uhhh???
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:Not is will not.
On 7/15/2026 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:Then that "formal" language will be a natural language,
On 14/07/2026 20:09, olcott wrote:There is nothing like it. It inherently always has full
On 7/14/2026 10:12 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:Usually, when a new concept is presented, it is compared to nearest
On 06/07/2026 16:15, olcott wrote:That is totally wrong.
P reo Q where the rules of inference are onlyThis has a standard and commonplace interpretation
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically}
is something brand new under the Sun and specifies
this brand new notion compositionally from four words
that may have never been strung together ever before.
existing concepts and the similarities and differences are analuzed.
natural language semantics directly in its formal language.
Its formal language is CycL or equivalent.You don't have the full expressiveness of a natural language in a formal language. That's the whole point of formal languages.
You are stipulating falsehoods, like 2 + 2 = 5. You can't do that. Youand you lose allI am stipulating the properties of my system
the advantages of what formal languages are designed for.
You're wrong, there.For example, you could explain how your "semantic entailment"It utterly tosses every aspect of logic out the door
relates to G||del's completeness theorem of the first order logic.
and starts over from scratch.
{semantic entailment specified syntactically} is
the only inference step allowed, thus everything
anyone ever learned about logic does not apply.
disagreement with stipulative definitions is incorrect.
That's a lie. What you call your system of "inherently correctG||del's Incompleteness Theorem applies in anyMy systems tosses every aspect of logic out on its
system of logic
ass and replaces it with inherently correct reasoning.
He [ G||del ] didn't merely "say" his theorem, he proved it too. Hiswhich is consistent and has arithmetic. That includesWhen he said this he did not understand that an
systems of illogic, too.
entirely different framework could be devised.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:26:11 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,091 |