From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 6/21/2026 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/06/2026 03:41, olcott wrote:

Knowledge is not merely a justified true belief.

Knowledge is a sufficiently justified true belief such
that the justification is sufficient reason to conclude
that the belief is true. Copyright PL Olcott 2026

The problem is what justification is sufficient to call the conclusion "knowledge". That problem is a consequence to some peoples desire to
have a word for a concept that is hard to define and hard to use without mistakes.

When we use the court's "reasonable person"
standard we know that no reasonable person
would ever construe number of coins in the
pocket as having anything at all to do with
getting the job. (the first Gettier case)

https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/

On the other hand the company president's opinion
about who would be hired might be construed as a
sufficiently justified belief.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

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

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

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

From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 22/06/2026 02:47, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2026 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/06/2026 03:41, olcott wrote:

Knowledge is not merely a justified true belief.

Knowledge is a sufficiently justified true belief such
that the justification is sufficient reason to conclude
that the belief is true. Copyright PL Olcott 2026

The problem is what justification is sufficient to call the conclusion
"knowledge". That problem is a consequence to some peoples desire to
have a word for a concept that is hard to define and hard to use without
mistakes.

When we use the court's "reasonable person"
standard we know that no reasonable person
would ever construe number of coins in the
pocket as having anything at all to do with
getting the job. (the first Gettier case)

https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/

On the other hand the company president's opinion
about who would be hired might be construed as a
sufficiently justified belief.

It is hard to construct a rule that simulates a "reasonable person".
And also hard to test how well some proposed rule achieves that.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 6/22/2026 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 22/06/2026 02:47, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2026 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/06/2026 03:41, olcott wrote:

Knowledge is not merely a justified true belief.

Knowledge is a sufficiently justified true belief such
that the justification is sufficient reason to conclude
that the belief is true. Copyright PL Olcott 2026

The problem is what justification is sufficient to call the conclusion
"knowledge". That problem is a consequence to some peoples desire to
have a word for a concept that is hard to define and hard to use without >>> mistakes.

When we use the court's "reasonable person"
standard we know that no reasonable person
would ever construe number of coins in the
pocket as having anything at all to do with
getting the job. (the first Gettier case)

https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/

On the other hand the company president's opinion
about who would be hired might be construed as a
sufficiently justified belief.

It is hard to construct a rule that simulates a "reasonable person".
And also hard to test how well some proposed rule achieves that.

None-the-less the Gettier cases are conquered.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott

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

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

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

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

From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 22/06/2026 17:45, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2026 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 22/06/2026 02:47, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2026 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/06/2026 03:41, olcott wrote:

Knowledge is not merely a justified true belief.

Knowledge is a sufficiently justified true belief such
that the justification is sufficient reason to conclude
that the belief is true. Copyright PL Olcott 2026

The problem is what justification is sufficient to call the conclusion >>>> "knowledge". That problem is a consequence to some peoples desire to
have a word for a concept that is hard to define and hard to use
without
mistakes.

When we use the court's "reasonable person"
standard we know that no reasonable person
would ever construe number of coins in the
pocket as having anything at all to do with
getting the job. (the first Gettier case)

https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/

On the other hand the company president's opinion
about who would be hired might be construed as a
sufficiently justified belief.

It is hard to construct a rule that simulates a "reasonable person".
And also hard to test how well some proposed rule achieves that.

None-the-less the Gettier cases are conquered.

Merely ad hoc solutions, no computable method.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2