1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. sci.logic

  • Re: Olcott's system at test

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math on Tue Jul 14 13:15:41 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.logic

    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 Mikko@mikko.levanto@iki.fi to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math on Wed Jul 15 09:44:59 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.logic

    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 olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Wed Jul 15 10:01:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.logic

    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 Mikko@mikko.levanto@iki.fi to sci.logic,comp.theory,sci.math on Thu Jul 16 08:56:28 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.logic

    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