On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>> abstract in
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>> who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
What superficially looks like contradiction
"This sentence is not true"
Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>
The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. >>>>>>>>> The two are different things. A contradiction is a statement >>>>>>>>> which is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which >>>>>>>>> no truth value can be consistently assigned.
André
Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by
contradiction applies,
False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've
been attempting (and failing) to refute for years.
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines
that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according
to the operational semantics of the C programming language.
That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program.
The exact operational semantics of C conclusively
prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in
these operational semantics because this input
specifies non-terminating recursive simulation
to HHH.
Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics
do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD
halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the
C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that environment >>> it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD
halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it
could be rejected by the compiler.
Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way
to handle pathological self-reference (PSR).
This would be dead obvious if you were not totally
clueless about Prolog.
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
This has been completely rewritten just now.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md
The description is updated. The described is not updated.
On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote:What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat?
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other
On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract in
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>> who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I can't >>>>>>>>>>>> be bothered
to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>>>>>>> all, that
something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and >>>>>>>>>>>> Outlook"
section at the end:
| Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically
exclusively been
| occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play a >>>>>>>>>>>> central role
| in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive, and
| perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that >>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined
| inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>> inferential
| definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>>>>>> extra- logical
| inferential definitions alike.
Does this have any meaning?
Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently and >>>>>>>>>>> in the
near future not useful as making it useful requires much time >>>>>>>>>>> and
effort if it is possible at all.
Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful >>>>>>>>>> for? What it
ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe >>>>>>>>>> André could
elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than anybody >>>>>>>>>> else here.
I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>>>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford
Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not
exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What I >>>>>>>>> am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks any
understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a variety >>>>>>>>> of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, that PTS >>>>>>>>> claims that unproven propositions are 'meaningless' or that the >>>>>>>>> goal of PTS is to completely overthrow standard truth-theoretic >>>>>>>>> semantics).
André
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to
truth-condition semantics. It is based on the
fundamental assumption that the central notion
in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain
expressions of our language, in particular to
logical constants, is that of proof rather than
truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics
is semantics in terms of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>
In other words it answers the question:
What happens when truth conditional semantics is
utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof
theoretic semantics?
questions presented.
This is the key element to creating the algorithm
that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time.
We can make these lies look foolish at every language
level from below average kindergarten to profoundly
brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we
can do this before the liar finishes saying their
sentence.
It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more
than 100-fold more valuable.
It is not that they never admit defeat.
It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning
that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information.
It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible
reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the
relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system
that tells something interesting instead of just different
presentations of the same already known facts.
It will have the exhaustively complete list of
every atomic fact of general knowledge of the
actual world.
That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general knowledge
in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts.
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlaysonSome people only memorize conventional views and
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics)
incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to
look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, which
sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly
retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present
ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things
are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a publishable >>>>> (or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being
on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles
that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but
aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or
has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Now that I am acquiring the lingua franca of PTS I
will finally be able to publish.
If all you can publish is in the topic area of PtS then they may
count as uninteresting to those whose primary problems are not in
that topic area.
My extensions to PTS eliminate the LLM reliability issues.
Does not help as long as those extensions are not published so that
your articles can point to them.
This makes the Trillion dollar industry at least 100-fold
more valuable.
Value of some industry in January 2049 is a proor predictor of the
vale of the same industry in December 2049.
On 22/06/2026 18:12, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:00, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:18, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:25 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/18/2026 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlaysonSome people only memorize conventional views and
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
This seems to be the rigidly conformist and memorize
by rote mindset.
Hm. Here there is a rather "rigidly conformist" approach,
and "an extreme rationalism", though, it's not the usual.
a principle of inverse
supplants, subsumes, and includes
a principle of non-contradiction/excluded-middle
Modern Logic has always simply ignored that an
expression may be semantically incoherent because
logic has always ignored semantics and focused
on syntax.
Modern logic has
always put semantics outside of the formal system
in a separate model.
And that way avoided semantic incoherence in formal systems.
It didn't really avoid it.
The semantic incoherence was merely hidden.
How can there be a semantic incoherece without any semantics?
PTS does not do that.
Gödel proved that every consistent first order theory has a model.
That means that a consisten first order theory cannot be semantically >>>>> incoherent.
Like I just said.
Therefore we can trust that in every theory that can express the
truths of the natural numbers there is a true sentence that cannot
be proven.
As I have been saying for many years and finally
strict Proof Theoretic Semantics based on Dag Prawitz
theory of Grounds agrees G is ungrounded in PA
and is only true in meta-math. G was never ever true directly in PA.
In every model of PA either G or its negation is true. It does not
mattet which, either way there is a true but unprovable sentence
in PA. Gödel also proved that if additional postulates are added
to make G or its negation (but not both) provable there will be
another sentece that is true but unprovable (unless the system is inconsistent).
On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote:The exact operational semantics of C conclusively
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>>> abstract in
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>> who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
What superficially looks like contradiction
"This sentence is not true"
Once again, you're responding to people's posts with irrelevancy. >>>>>>>>>>
The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. >>>>>>>>>> The two are different things. A contradiction is a statement >>>>>>>>>> which is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which >>>>>>>>>> no truth value can be consistently assigned.
André
Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by
contradiction applies,
False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting problem >>>>>>>> proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which you've >>>>>>>> been attempting (and failing) to refute for years.
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines
that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according
to the operational semantics of the C programming language.
That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>>>>
prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in
these operational semantics because this input
specifies non-terminating recursive simulation
to HHH.
Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics
do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD
halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the
C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that
environment
it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD
halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it
could be rejected by the compiler.
Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way
to handle pathological self-reference (PSR).
This would be dead obvious if you were not totally
clueless about Prolog.
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
Not nice to see that everyone continues to
totally ignore my best validation of proof
theoretic semantics.
This is understandable for anyone that has no
idea what a directed graph is.
This has been completely rewritten just now.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md
The description is updated. The described is not updated.
It always was a proof theoretic halt prover
I just didn't have those terms until recently.
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlaysonSome people only memorize conventional views and
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics)
incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to
look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly
retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>>>> ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things
are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a
publishable
(or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being
on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles
that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but
aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or
has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
most respected authors in the field.
My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
of your concentration understanding me and the other
99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
rebuttal.
On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote:The exact operational semantics of C conclusively
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract in
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>> who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
What superficially looks like contradiction
"This sentence is not true"
Once again, you're responding to people's posts with
irrelevancy.
The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof by >>>>>>>>>>> contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a paradox. >>>>>>>>>>> The two are different things. A contradiction is a statement >>>>>>>>>>> which is necessarily false. A paradox is a statement to which >>>>>>>>>>> no truth value can be consistently assigned.
André
Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by
contradiction applies,
False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting
problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of which >>>>>>>>> you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years.
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according
to the operational semantics of the C programming language.
That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C program. >>>>>>
prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in
these operational semantics because this input
specifies non-terminating recursive simulation
to HHH.
Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational semantics >>>>> do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD
halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by the >>>>> C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that
environment
it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD
halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted or it >>>>> could be rejected by the compiler.
Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way
to handle pathological self-reference (PSR).
This would be dead obvious if you were not totally
clueless about Prolog.
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
Not nice to see that everyone continues to
totally ignore my best validation of proof
theoretic semantics.
Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation
of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics
are not good enough.
This is understandable for anyone that has no
idea what a directed graph is.
Your understanding of understandability is far from the real thing.
This has been completely rewritten just now.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md
The description is updated. The described is not updated.
It always was a proof theoretic halt prover
I just didn't have those terms until recently.
It is not a prover. It does not prove.
It produces some execution trace
but may end before termination, and presents its conclusion or crashes.
Anyway, it does not matter what you call it. It only matters that your programs don't answer any interesting question.
On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote:What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat?
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>>>>>>> questions presented.
On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered
to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, that
something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Outlook"
section at the end:
| Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been
| occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a central role
| in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive, and
| perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined
| inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential
| definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra- logical
| inferential definitions alike.
Does this have any meaning?
Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently >>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the
near future not useful as making it useful requires much >>>>>>>>>>>>> time and
effort if it is possible at all.
Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful >>>>>>>>>>>> for? What it
ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe >>>>>>>>>>>> André could
elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here.
I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>>>>>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford
Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not >>>>>>>>>>> exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What I >>>>>>>>>>> am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks any
understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a
variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, >>>>>>>>>>> that PTS claims that unproven propositions are 'meaningless' >>>>>>>>>>> or that the goal of PTS is to completely overthrow standard >>>>>>>>>>> truth- theoretic semantics).
André
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to
truth-condition semantics. It is based on the
fundamental assumption that the central notion
in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain
expressions of our language, in particular to
logical constants, is that of proof rather than
truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics
is semantics in terms of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>
In other words it answers the question:
What happens when truth conditional semantics is
utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof
theoretic semantics?
This is the key element to creating the algorithm
that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time.
We can make these lies look foolish at every language
level from below average kindergarten to profoundly
brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we
can do this before the liar finishes saying their
sentence.
It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more
than 100-fold more valuable.
It is not that they never admit defeat.
It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning
that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information.
It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible
reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the
relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system
that tells something interesting instead of just different
presentations of the same already known facts.
It will have the exhaustively complete list of
every atomic fact of general knowledge of the
actual world.
That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general knowledge
in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts.
It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly.
We start with all of the textbooks.
That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend
to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones,
mainly some now obsolete technology.
On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlaysonSome people only memorize conventional views and
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics)
incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to
look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>>>>> ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things
are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a
publishable
(or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human being >>>>>> on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles
that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but
aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or
has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
most respected authors in the field.
My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
of your concentration understanding me and the other
99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
rebuttal.
THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more
important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one
mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is
wrong one may achieve a disaseter.
On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote:
olcott wrote:It is not that they never admit defeat.
On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote:What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>>>>>>>> questions presented.
On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered
to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, that
something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook"
section at the end:
| Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been
| occupied with logical constants. Logical constants play >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a central role
| in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive, and
| perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined
| inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential
| definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical
| inferential definitions alike.
Does this have any meaning?
Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the
near future not useful as making it useful requires much >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and
effort if it is possible at all.
Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be useful >>>>>>>>>>>>> for? What it
ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? Maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>> André could
elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here.
I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>>>>>>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What >>>>>>>>>>>> I am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks any >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a >>>>>>>>>>>> variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, >>>>>>>>>>>> that PTS claims that unproven propositions are 'meaningless' >>>>>>>>>>>> or that the goal of PTS is to completely overthrow standard >>>>>>>>>>>> truth- theoretic semantics).
André
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to
truth-condition semantics. It is based on the
fundamental assumption that the central notion
in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain
expressions of our language, in particular to
logical constants, is that of proof rather than
truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics
is semantics in terms of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>
In other words it answers the question:
What happens when truth conditional semantics is
utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof
theoretic semantics?
This is the key element to creating the algorithm
that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time.
We can make these lies look foolish at every language
level from below average kindergarten to profoundly
brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we
can do this before the liar finishes saying their
sentence.
It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more
than 100-fold more valuable.
It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information.
It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible
reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the
relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system
that tells something interesting instead of just different
presentations of the same already known facts.
It will have the exhaustively complete list of
every atomic fact of general knowledge of the
actual world.
That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general knowledge >>>> in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts.
It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly.
We start with all of the textbooks.
That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend
to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones,
mainly some now obsolete technology.
It would not be too much reading for LLMs.
It could start with all of the latest textbooks
for all of the fields. Some of these latest
textbooks may be hundreds of years old for
fields that have become obsolete.
On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlaysonSome people only memorize conventional views and
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>>>>>> ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things
are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a
publishable
(or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human
being on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles
that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but
aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or
has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
most respected authors in the field.
My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
of your concentration understanding me and the other
99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
rebuttal.
THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more
important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one
mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is
wrong one may achieve a disaseter.
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative
to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed
to same that no alternative can possibly exist.
On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
What superficially looks like contradiction
"This sentence is not true"
Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy.
The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently >>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned.
André
Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by
contradiction applies,
False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>
program.
The exact operational semantics of C conclusively
prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in
these operational semantics because this input
specifies non-terminating recursive simulation
to HHH.
Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational
semantics
do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided by >>>>>>> the
C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that
environment
it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>> or it
could be rejected by the compiler.
Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way
to handle pathological self-reference (PSR).
This would be dead obvious if you were not totally
clueless about Prolog.
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
Not nice to see that everyone continues to
totally ignore my best validation of proof
theoretic semantics.
Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation
of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics
are not good enough.
Is is dead obvious and completely clear example
of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using
generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in
Prolog.
Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting
different views about it -- and not even a resolution.
Anyway, nice to see that you still don't disabree.
This is understandable for anyone that has no
idea what a directed graph is.
Your understanding of understandability is far from the real thing.
This has been completely rewritten just now.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/README.md
The description is updated. The described is not updated.
It always was a proof theoretic halt prover
I just didn't have those terms until recently.
It is not a prover. It does not prove.
It proves that no canonical proof of DD reaching
its own final halt state exists within the operational
semantics of the C programming language for PTS halt
prover HHH.
Irrelevant. That DD halts when executed is sufficient for a reasonable
person to conclude that it halts. To formulate that inference as a
formal proof is trivial to anyone who knows the formal rules.
It produces some execution trace
but may end before termination, and presents its conclusion or crashes.
Perhaps you have no idea what cycles in directed graphs are?
Doesn't really matter, especially when they are not even mentioned.
The words are well known and the definitions can be found on the
web.
On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote:It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible
olcott wrote:It is not that they never admit defeat.
On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote:What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>>
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>>>>>>>>> questions presented.
On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review.
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered
to read it any further. If it actually says anything at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all, that
something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook"
section at the end:
| Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been
| occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role
| in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive, and
| perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined
| inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential
| definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical
| inferential definitions alike.
Does this have any meaning?
Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the
near future not useful as making it useful requires much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and
effort if it is possible at all.
Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it
ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could
elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here.
I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. What >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks any >>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a >>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that PTS claims that unproven propositions are
'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to completely >>>>>>>>>>>>> overthrow standard truth- theoretic semantics).
André
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to
truth-condition semantics. It is based on the
fundamental assumption that the central notion
in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to
logical constants, is that of proof rather than
truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics
is semantics in terms of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
In other words it answers the question:
What happens when truth conditional semantics is
utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof
theoretic semantics?
This is the key element to creating the algorithm
that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time.
We can make these lies look foolish at every language
level from below average kindergarten to profoundly
brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we
can do this before the liar finishes saying their
sentence.
It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more
than 100-fold more valuable.
It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>
reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the
relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system
that tells something interesting instead of just different
presentations of the same already known facts.
It will have the exhaustively complete list of
every atomic fact of general knowledge of the
actual world.
That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general
knowledge
in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts.
It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly.
We start with all of the textbooks.
That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend
to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones,
mainly some now obsolete technology.
It would not be too much reading for LLMs.
It could start with all of the latest textbooks
for all of the fields. Some of these latest
textbooks may be hundreds of years old for
fields that have become obsolete.
Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting
atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the
inference system.
On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and
reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>>>>>>> ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things
are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a
publishable
(or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human
being on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles >>>>>>> that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but
aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or
has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
most respected authors in the field.
My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
of your concentration understanding me and the other
99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
rebuttal.
THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more
important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one
mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is
wrong one may achieve a disaseter.
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative
to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed
to same that no alternative can possibly exist.
You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative semantics.
On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>> program.
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
What superficially looks like contradiction
"This sentence is not true"
Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy.
The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paradox. The two are different things. A contradiction is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a statement which is necessarily false. A paradox is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement to which no truth value can be consistently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned.
André
Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by
contradiction applies,
False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for years. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>>
The exact operational semantics of C conclusively
prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in
these operational semantics because this input
specifies non-terminating recursive simulation
to HHH.
Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational
semantics
do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove that DD >>>>>>>> halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>> by the
C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that
environment
it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>>> or it
could be rejected by the compiler.
Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way
to handle pathological self-reference (PSR).
This would be dead obvious if you were not totally
clueless about Prolog.
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
Not nice to see that everyone continues to
totally ignore my best validation of proof
theoretic semantics.
Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation
of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics
are not good enough.
Is is dead obvious and completely clear example
of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using
generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in
Prolog.
Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting
different views about it -- and not even a resolution.
If others did not reject mine out-of-hand
without review they could understand that
it is final.
On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote:(a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part,
On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote:It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly.
On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote:It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the
olcott wrote:It is not that they never admit defeat.
On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote:What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>>>
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and other >>>>>>>>>>>> questions presented.
On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered
to read it any further. If it actually says anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, that
something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook"
section at the end:
| Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been
| occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role
| in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive, and
| perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined
| inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential
| definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical
| inferential definitions alike.
Does this have any meaning?
Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently and in the
near future not useful as making it useful requires much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and
effort if it is possible at all.
Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it
ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could
elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here.
I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I am quite certain of, however, is that Olcott lacks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any understanding of what PTS actually says as he's made a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of fairly absurd claims regarding it (for example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that PTS claims that unproven propositions are
'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is to completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overthrow standard truth- theoretic semantics).
André
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to
truth-condition semantics. It is based on the
fundamental assumption that the central notion
in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to
logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics
is semantics in terms of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
In other words it answers the question:
What happens when truth conditional semantics is
utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof
theoretic semantics?
This is the key element to creating the algorithm
that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time.
We can make these lies look foolish at every language
level from below average kindergarten to profoundly
brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we
can do this before the liar finishes saying their
sentence.
It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more
than 100-fold more valuable.
It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>>
relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different
presentations of the same already known facts.
It will have the exhaustively complete list of
every atomic fact of general knowledge of the
actual world.
That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general
knowledge
in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts. >>>>>
We start with all of the textbooks.
That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend
to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones,
mainly some now obsolete technology.
It would not be too much reading for LLMs.
It could start with all of the latest textbooks
for all of the fields. Some of these latest
textbooks may be hundreds of years old for
fields that have become obsolete.
Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting
atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the
inference system.
yet not too hard.
(b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison.
(c) Encoding facts, CycL
On 6/25/2026 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and reject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative views out-of-hand without review
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, which >>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>>>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your present >>>>>>>>>>>> ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >>>>>>>>>>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a >>>>>>>>>> publishable
(or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human >>>>>>>>> being on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles >>>>>>>> that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but >>>>>>>> aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or >>>>>> has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
most respected authors in the field.
My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
of your concentration understanding me and the other
99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
rebuttal.
THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more
important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one
mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is
wrong one may achieve a disaseter.
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition
semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative
to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed
to same that no alternative can possibly exist.
You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative semantics.
With dangerous lies that can destroy Democracy
and kill the planet with climate change having
an ultimate arbiter of truth would be useful.
On 25/06/2026 16:43, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2026 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 24/06/2026 23:19, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:29, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 16:13, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:51, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 23:03, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:That only means that your DD is not a strictly confoming C >>>>>>>>>>> program.
On 6/20/2026 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-06-19 20:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 3:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
What superficially looks like contradiction
"This sentence is not true"
Once again, you're responding to people's posts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevancy.
The Liar's Paradox has absolutely nothing to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof by contradiction. The LP isn't a contradiction; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a paradox. The two are different things. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction is a statement which is necessarily false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A paradox is a statement to which no truth value can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistently assigned.
André
Then I have never spoken of anything where proof by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction applies,
False, as that is exactly the method uses by the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof, Godel's proof, and Tarski's proof, each of >>>>>>>>>>>>> which you've been attempting (and failing) to refute for >>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
Proof Theoretic Semantics halt prover HHH correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>>> that its input DD is ungrounded in its atomic base according >>>>>>>>>>>> to the operational semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>>>>>>
The exact operational semantics of C conclusively
prove that the input DD to HHH is ungrounded in
these operational semantics because this input
specifies non-terminating recursive simulation
to HHH.
Because DD is not strictly conforming the exact operational >>>>>>>>> semantics
do not fully specify the behaviour of DD. In order to prove >>>>>>>>> that DD
halts you also need additional operational spemantics provided >>>>>>>>> by the
C implementation you have used. When DD iss executed in that >>>>>>>>> environment
it halts, which is sufficient to prove that in that environment DD >>>>>>>>> halts. In some other environment its execution might be aborted >>>>>>>>> or it
could be rejected by the compiler.
Proof Theoretic Semantics provides the correct way
to handle pathological self-reference (PSR).
This would be dead obvious if you were not totally
clueless about Prolog.
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Nice to see that you don't disagree.
Not nice to see that everyone continues to
totally ignore my best validation of proof
theoretic semantics.
Unfortunately that is unavoidable as long as your best presentation
of the validation and of your version of proof theoretic semantics
are not good enough.
Is is dead obvious and completely clear example
of the final resolution of the Liar Paradox using
generic proof theoretic semantics implemented in
Prolog.
Except that it is not final -- others will continue presenting
different views about it -- and not even a resolution.
If others did not reject mine out-of-hand
without review they could understand that
it is final.
Even those who think your resolution is the best there can be should understand that there are others who don't shate that opinion.
On 25/06/2026 16:47, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2026 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 24/06/2026 23:23, olcott wrote:(a) Extracting atomic facts, would be the hardest part,
On 6/24/2026 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:40, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 18:16, olcott wrote:It can be reasonably approximated pretty quickly.
On 6/22/2026 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 03:44, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 7:32 PM, phoenix wrote:It is fairly simple to build a system of essentially infallible >>>>>>>>> reasoning that never errs even when it doesn't have all the
olcott wrote:It is not that they never admit defeat.
On 6/21/2026 5:36 PM, phoenix wrote:What good does it do to program the LLMs to never admit defeat? >>>>>>>>>>
olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 3:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:Lastly, and why should we care? Please answer this and >>>>>>>>>>>>> other questions presented.
On 2026-06-20 04:26, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 19/06/2026 23:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic- semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject
alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is abstract in
the extreme. One thing is utterly clear: its level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction is
well beyond the comprehension capabilities of Peter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott, who can't
even understand proof by contradiction.
That page's level of abstraction is high enough that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be bothered
to read it any further. If it actually says anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, that
something is heavily disguised. From it's "Conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Outlook"
section at the end:
| Standard proof-theoretic semantics has practically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclusively been
| occupied with logical constants. Logical constants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play a central role
| in reasoning and inference, but are definitely not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exclusive, and
| perhaps not even the most typical sort of entities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be defined
| inferentially. A framework is needed that deals with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inferential
| definitions in a wider sense and covers both logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and extra- logical
| inferential definitions alike.
Does this have any meaning?
Yes. It means that proof-theoretic semantics is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently and in the
near future not useful as making it useful requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much time and
effort if it is possible at all.
Do its proponents have any idea what PTS ought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful for? What it
ought to be able to do that standard logic fails at? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe André could
elucidate. He seems to have a better grasp of it than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else here.
I doubt my understanding of PTS is any better than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I basically only know what is presented in the Stanford >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia article (which you correctly point out is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not exactly aimed at beginners) and the Wikipedia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article. What I am quite certain of, however, is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott lacks any understanding of what PTS actually says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as he's made a variety of fairly absurd claims regarding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it (for example, that PTS claims that unproven
propositions are 'meaningless' or that the goal of PTS is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to completely overthrow standard truth- theoretic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics).
André
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth-condition semantics. It is based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental assumption that the central notion >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of which meanings are assigned to certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of our language, in particular to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical constants, is that of proof rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth. In this sense proof-theoretic semantics >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is semantics in terms of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
In other words it answers the question:
What happens when truth conditional semantics is
utterly abandoned and is totally replaced by proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretic semantics?
This is the key element to creating the algorithm
that divides truth was well-crafted lies in real time. >>>>>>>>>>>>
We can make these lies look foolish at every language
level from below average kindergarten to profoundly
brilliant genius with a PhD in everything and we
can do this before the liar finishes saying their
sentence.
It also make the trillion dollar LLM industry more
than 100-fold more valuable.
It is that that have a system of essentially infallible reasoning >>>>>>>>>> that never errs as long as it has all the relevant information. >>>>>>>>>
relevant information. The real problem is to construct a system >>>>>>>>> that tells something interesting instead of just different
presentations of the same already known facts.
It will have the exhaustively complete list of
every atomic fact of general knowledge of the
actual world.
That is impossible. By the time you have all facts of general
knowledge
in your system the general knowledge has grown to inlude more facts. >>>>>>
We start with all of the textbooks.
That is a lot of reading, though those for the same topic area tend
to say the same, and the old ones add very little to the new ones,
mainly some now obsolete technology.
It would not be too much reading for LLMs.
It could start with all of the latest textbooks
for all of the fields. Some of these latest
textbooks may be hundreds of years old for
fields that have become obsolete.
Perhaps that apprach should be tried. The problem involves extracting
atomic facts, detecting repeated facts, and encoding facts for the
inference system.
yet not too hard.
(b) Detecting repeated facts, string comparison.
(c) Encoding facts, CycL
The encoding must be normalized as much as possible in order to reduce repetition to a string comparison. That is not a trivial problem if one
wants a total or nearly total prevention of repetition.
On 25/06/2026 16:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2026 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 24/06/2026 23:25, olcott wrote:
On 6/24/2026 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 23/06/2026 17:47, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2026 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2026 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 22/06/2026 02:58, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2026 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 20/06/2026 17:41, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2026 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 19/06/2026 15:46, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 18/06/2026 22:35, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:Whereas you are stuck to your own incoherent views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson
Making sure to leave out
Proof-theoretic semantics
(an alternative to truth-condition semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics/
Some people only memorize conventional views and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject alternative views out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
alternative views out-of-hand without review
Calling my views (anchored in proof theoretic semantics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> look into proof theoretic semantics.
At different times you have expressed different opinions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which
sometimes have been incompatible. But you have never clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>> retracted your earlier opitions that conflict with your >>>>>>>>>>>>> present
ones.
All of the ideas that I have ever had about these things >>>>>>>>>>>> are now under the Proof Theoretic Semantics category.
These ideas have evolved over time, yet their essence
has remained utterly unchanged since 1997.
That's nearly thirty years, and you still havn't written a >>>>>>>>>>> publishable
(or nearly publishable) article about them.
I have 50 pre prints articles. Because not one single> human >>>>>>>>>> being on the face of the Earth could understand
me I could not publish.
As far as I have seen, all interesting content in those articles >>>>>>>>> that have any is or depends on claims that should be proven but >>>>>>>>> aren't.
They are proven in Proof Theoretic Semantics
An aricle is not publishable unless it either contains the proof or >>>>>>> has a pointer to an olready published proof.
Only now after 28 years am I acquiring the lingua Franca
terms-of-the-art of proof theoretic semantics such that
I can anchor my ideas in the foundational work of the
most respected authors in the field.
My issue with you guys is that you only spend 1%
of your concentration understanding me and the other
99% trying to artificially contrive some baseless
rebuttal.
THat "baseless" is false but otherwise, what is wrong is more
important than what is right. Of one ignores what is right one
mai fail to achieve what one could, but if one believs what is
wrong one may achieve a disaseter.
Proof-theoretic semantics is an alternative to truth-condition
semantics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
So far no one has even acknowledged that PTS is an alternative
to truth-conditional semantics. Several people have seemed
to same that no alternative can possibly exist.
You have not shown that there is any need for any alternative semantics.
With dangerous lies that can destroy Democracy
and kill the planet with climate change having
an ultimate arbiter of truth would be useful.
Those who are able and willing to destroy democracy are able to provice
an ultimate arbiter of truth and usually do so. But they don't need any
proof theoretic semantics.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 24:40:35 |
| Calls: | 14,394 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
6,194 files (1,561M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,545,009 |
| Posted today: | 1 |