From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

Ever since 1997 the author has investigated the fundamental
nature of “true on the basis of meaning”. The traditional
analytic / synthetic distinction is unequivocally demarcated into:

(a) True on the basis of meaning fully expressed as
relations between finite strings.

(b) True that can only be verified by sense data from the
sense organs.

Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent set
of stipulated truths and only applies the truth preserving
operation of semantic logical entailment to this finite
set of basic facts inherently derives a truth predicate
that works consistently and correctly for this entire body
of knowledge that can be expressed in language.

“The halting problem, as classically formulated,
relies on an inferential step that is not justified
by a continuous chain of semantic entailment from
its initial stipulations.”
...
"The halting problem’s definition contains a break
in the chain of semantic entailment; it asserts
totality over a domain that its own semantics cannot
support."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396510896_The_Halting_Problem_is_Incoherent


Link to the following dialogue https://chatgpt.com/share/68ef97b5-6770-8011-9aad-323009ca7841
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 10/15/2025 2:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-10-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/15/2025 12:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

A much more succinct and accurate explanation is the Peter Olcott is
wrong. That's been clear for a long time, now.

When you start with the conclusion that I must
be wrong as a stipulated truth then that will
be the conclusion that you will draw.

Pretty much everyone new here started by assuming you are right, and
then by so doing, reached obvious falsehoods.

You've received vast numbers of counter arguments which show that
you cannot be right, rather than just assume it.

Once someone discovers you are wrong, and that you produce no
new ideas or corrections, you just stay wrong.

Until you produce something fresh, you do not deserve a fresh assumption
that you might be right; that path is worn out.

Ever since 1997 the author has investigated the fundamental
nature of “true on the basis of meaning”. The traditional
analytic / synthetic distinction is unequivocally demarcated into:

(a) True on the basis of meaning fully expressed as
relations between finite strings.

(b) True that can only be verified by sense data from the
sense organs.

Any system of reasoning that begins with a consistent set
of stipulated truths and only applies the truth preserving
operation of semantic logical entailment to this finite
set of basic facts inherently derives a truth predicate
that works consistently and correctly for this entire body
of knowledge that can be expressed in language.

“The halting problem, as classically formulated,
relies on an inferential step that is not justified
by a continuous chain of semantic entailment from
its initial stipulations.”
...
"The halting problem’s definition contains a break
in the chain of semantic entailment; it asserts
totality over a domain that its own semantics cannot
support."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396510896_The_Halting_Problem_is_Incoherent

Link to the following dialogue https://chatgpt.com/share/68ef97b5-6770-8011-9aad-323009ca7841
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 10/19/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-10-18 10:58:15 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/18/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

That is not a sense of "proof".

That is the correct way to do a proof.

A way to do is not a sense.

The conventional way to do proofs concludes that
within its rules if the Moon is made from green
cheese and the Moon is not made from green cheese
this proves that Donald Trump is the Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

Formalizing ALL semantics syntactically and allowing
semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference
prevents nonsense like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 10/19/2025 8:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/19/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-10-18 10:58:15 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/18/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

That is not a sense of "proof".

That is the correct way to do a proof.

A way to do is not a sense.

The conventional way to do proofs concludes that
within its rules if the Moon is made from green
cheese and the Moon is not made from green cheese
this proves that Donald Trump is the Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Oh man. You need help!

https://liarparadox.org/Meaning_Postulates_Rudolf_Carnap_1952.pdf

Formalizing ALL semantics syntactically and allowing
semantic logical entailment as the only rule of inference
prevents nonsense like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2