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 semanticsSome people only memorize conventional views and
(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)I've spent a couple of hours reading that web page. It is >>>>>>>>> abstract in
incoherent merely proves that you are too damned lazy to
look into proof theoretic semantics.
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
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.
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 semanticsSome people only memorize conventional views and
(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.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
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.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 23:56:56 |
| Calls: | 14,394 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
5,748 files (1,443M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,544,985 |
| Posted today: | 1 |