From Newsgroup: sci.logic

Op 12.jul.2026 om 18:23 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.

A few questions:

1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?

2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?

3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.

Any system that is only a set of true statements
is inherently correct.

So, you think that the correctness your is part of your system that
contains all knowledge?
Is the sentence: 'Olcott's system is correct' accepted or rejected by
your system?
Depending on the answer our system either has a self reference, or it is incomplete.

It is just an example to show the inherent inconsistency in your reasoning.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.logic

On 7/13/2026 1:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.jul.2026 om 18:23 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.

A few questions:

1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?

2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think
he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his
basic facts and rules are correct?

3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.

Any system that is only a set of true statements
is inherently correct.

So, you think that the correctness your is part of your system that
contains all knowledge?
Is the sentence: 'Olcott's system is correct' accepted or rejected by
your system?
Depending on the answer our system either has a self reference, or it is incomplete.

It is just an example to show the inherent inconsistency in your reasoning.

The set of all knowledge is infinite.
The set of all general knowledge is a finite list.
--
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: sci.logic

Op 13.jul.2026 om 17:35 schreef olcott:

On 7/13/2026 1:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.jul.2026 om 18:23 schreef olcott:

On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in
2020 because of fraud' is not true.

A few questions:

1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?

2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all
his basic facts and rules are correct?

3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.

Any system that is only a set of true statements
is inherently correct.

So, you think that the correctness your is part of your system that
contains all knowledge?
Is the sentence: 'Olcott's system is correct' accepted or rejected by
your system?
Depending on the answer our system either has a self reference, or it
is incomplete.

It is just an example to show the inherent inconsistency in your
reasoning.

The set of all knowledge is infinite.
The set of all general knowledge is a finite list.

Is that an answer to my question?
Do you mean to say that the sentence: 'Olcott's system is correct'
cannot be part of general knowledge? So, why then would it convince
everyone?


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2