1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.ai.philosophy

  • Re: Ross A. Finlayson, readings in (some of the) --- One-two punchDestroys Liars

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to sci.logic,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Jun 23 09:38:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 6/23/2026 12:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 22/06/2026 15:05, olcott wrote:
    On 6/22/2026 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote:
    On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, 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

    It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
    reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.

    If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we
    usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational
    tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine
    are of claims that are true on some other basis.

    The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies
    of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove
    that these are lies to every level of understanding
    between kindergarten and PhD.

    You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single
    lie that would matter to typical people.

    Nothing is going to work until we get everyone to
    understand the difference between truth and lies

    I.e., nothing id going to ever work.


    Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508
    // 2026-06-07

    One-two punch Destroys Liars
    #WhatIsTheEvidence
    #ThatIsNotEvidence
    Around and around until Defeated

    This worked on Trump. He was so defeated that he
    quit the interview and got up and walked out.

    Even people that don't know any better can be
    taught the differnce between truth and lies
    in that truth has evidence.

    They will need to see lots of repetition where
    every time a lie is challenged with the above
    system it fails and the Liar gets up and walks
    out in defeat.
    --
    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 Ross Finlayson@ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com to sci.logic,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Jun 23 08:53:12 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 06/23/2026 07:38 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 6/23/2026 12:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 22/06/2026 15:05, olcott wrote:
    On 6/22/2026 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 22/06/2026 02:55, olcott wrote:
    On 6/21/2026 5:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 20/06/2026 16:50, olcott wrote:
    On 6/20/2026 5:26 AM, 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

    It makes "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
    reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.

    If a claim is true on the basis on meaning expressed in language we >>>>>> usually can easily determine its truth vaule wihout computational
    tools. The truth values we want to know but are hard to determine
    are of claims that are true on some other basis.

    The system I propose would cut off the dangerous lies
    of dangerous liars mid-sentence and be able to prove
    that these are lies to every level of understanding
    between kindergarten and PhD.

    You have not yet demonstrated any aboility to cut off a single
    lie that would matter to typical people.

    Nothing is going to work until we get everyone to
    understand the difference between truth and lies

    I.e., nothing id going to ever work.


    Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508
    // 2026-06-07

    One-two punch Destroys Liars
    #WhatIsTheEvidence
    #ThatIsNotEvidence
    Around and around until Defeated

    This worked on Trump. He was so defeated that he
    quit the interview and got up and walked out.

    Even people that don't know any better can be
    taught the differnce between truth and lies
    in that truth has evidence.

    They will need to see lots of repetition where
    every time a lie is challenged with the above
    system it fails and the Liar gets up and walks
    out in defeat.


    Du bist ein Krank.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2