P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are onlyWhat does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be
so encoded.
At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this,
and the burden of proof is on you.
And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless.What possible use could it be?
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be
so encoded.
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
This is closest to PTS definitional reflection:
The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister
Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches
Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister
At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this,
and the burden of proof is on you.
And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless.
What possible use could it be?
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be >>> so encoded.
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point.
Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In
your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be
derived since there are no further facts.
"All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of
every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle.
You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or
some other human language).
What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no defined symbols and is lacking logic.
This is closest to PTS definitional reflection:
The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister
Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches
Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister
At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this,
and the burden of proof is on you.
And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless.
What possible use could it be?
No answer to this critical point?
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge
cannot be
so encoded.
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In
your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be
derived since there are no further facts.
"All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of
every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of >> paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle.
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic
entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or
some other human language).
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
There is no element that says cats are living things.
What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no
defined symbols and is lacking logic.
This is closest to PTS definitional reflection:
The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister
Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches
Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister
At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this,
and the burden of proof is on you.
And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. >>>> What possible use could it be?
No answer to this critical point?
The meaning of my words proves my point.
This cannot occur until you first comprehend
the meaning of my words.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be >>> so encoded.
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be derived since there are no further facts.
"All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or some other human language).
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
There is no element that says cats are living things.
What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no defined symbols and is lacking logic.
This is closest to PTS definitional reflection:
The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister
Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches
Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister
At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this,
and the burden of proof is on you.
And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless.
What possible use could it be?
No answer to this critical point?
The meaning of my words proves my point.
This cannot occur until you first comprehend
the meaning of my words.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
On 07/09/2026 09:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I disagree, it's a limited account.
That's disagreeable.
Super-tasks, super-classical reasoning, mathematical independence,
these are objective sorts of mental reasonings that reasoners may
make revealed their truths.
Two different people with each their own subjective then
inter-subjective accounts have different bodies of knowledge.
This includes disagreements. Then, to make an account of
the wider, fuller dialectic of disagreements, simply has
that it's trivial that knowledge, wisdom, science, intelligence,
are accounts of knowing and knowledge and reasoning and reason.
"The sky is not fallen."
Shut Up, you're not saying anything.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 11:41 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I understand better than you that the entire body of knowledge cannot be >>>>> so encoded.
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system"
is incoherent and non existent.
Axioms are basic assumptions from which other facts can be derived. In
your "system" there are just facts, from which further facts can't be
derived since there are no further facts.
"All" the facts you are talking about involve the position and state of
every elementary particle in the universe. There aren't enough pieces of >>> paper to write these down, even ignoring Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle.
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets,
and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as
complicated as in our own system.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for
all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
You've made it clear, I think in a reply to Mikko, that by "semantic
entailment" you just mean informal linguistic discussion in English (or
some other human language).
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
There is no element that says cats are living things.
What you're picturing has nothing to do with symbolic logic; it has no
defined symbols and is lacking logic.
This is closest to PTS definitional reflection:
The Definitional View of Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics
Thomas Piecha and Peter Schroeder-Heister
Atomic Systems in Proof-Theoretic Semantics: Two Approaches
Thomas Piecha & Peter Schroeder-Heister
At the very least, you have not attempted to prove this,
and the burden of proof is on you.
And if such an encoding were somehow possible, it would be useless. >>>>> What possible use could it be?
No answer to this critical point?
The meaning of my words proves my point.
This cannot occur until you first comprehend
the meaning of my words.
Oh, I do. Your words are just vagueness followed by vagueness, with
constant avoidance of precision. That is the real reason you object to mathematical definitions, isn't it? That in using them correctly you
could be tied down to precise meanings, undermining your vagueness, at
which point your arguments would collapse.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling
back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning >>> as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
On 07/09/2026 12:56 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 09:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
The entire body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
Do you understand the details of how this is true
without any stream-of-consciousness verbosity?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Succinctness is impossible for me
I disagree, it's a limited account.
That's disagreeable.
Super-tasks, super-classical reasoning, mathematical independence,
these are objective sorts of mental reasonings that reasoners may
make revealed their truths.
Two different people with each their own subjective then
inter-subjective accounts have different bodies of knowledge.
This includes disagreements. Then, to make an account of
the wider, fuller dialectic of disagreements, simply has
that it's trivial that knowledge, wisdom, science, intelligence,
are accounts of knowing and knowledge and reasoning and reason.
"The sky is not fallen."
Shut Up, you're not saying anything.
Perhaps it's sad, yet, in my not especially humble opinion,
to avoid the smack of hubris, those who can't readily absorb,
comprehend, and digest the large amounts of the well-written word:
aren't particularly competent to make own grand claims about
"the entire body of factual knowledge".
On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are >>>> generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >>>> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of >>>> a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
What you don't care still bites.
Shut Up
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:You don't. You care only about your inane vainglorious boasting.
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:It is the normal meaning of the base words.
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:That does not answer the question. It does not specify
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are onlyWhat does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
is not used?
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning >> as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the wordsThat's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling >> back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that"I drove my car to Walmart"Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
to consumption and energy.
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can beIt turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semanticPure meaningless word salad, as well as having grammatical mistakes.
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all ofIt's pure bullshit.
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
--and as well with Chrysippus'--
moods: "very classical logic".
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
You don't. You care only about your inane vainglorious boasting.
You are very careful not to say exactly what you mean by things like "semantic entailment"
On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which
are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
falling
back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in
absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
What you don't care still bites.
Shut Up
Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of
ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend
to be a moron?
On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>>> are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
falling
back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in
absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>>
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
What you don't care still bites.
Shut Up
Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of
ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend
to be a moron?
Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde,
you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief.
On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>>> are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
falling
back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in
absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>>
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
What you don't care still bites.
Shut Up
Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of
ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend
to be a moron?
Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde,
you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief.
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just falling
back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
On 7/9/2026 3:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which
are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything
as 'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
The full meaning of {feline cat} entails that
cats are animals, mammals, living things et cetera.
No circle it has always been an acyclic directed
graph.
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system" is incoherent and non existent.
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets,
and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The meaning of my words proves my point.
This cannot occur until you first comprehend
the meaning of my words.
Oh, I do. Your words are just vagueness followed by vagueness, with constant avoidance of precision. That is the real reason you object to mathematical definitions, isn't it? That in using them correctly you
could be tied down to precise meanings, undermining your vagueness, at which point your arguments would collapse.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 09/07/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 3:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what
their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which
are generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
falling back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything
as 'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
The full meaning of {feline cat} entails that
cats are animals, mammals, living things et cetera.
No circle it has always been an acyclic directed
graph.
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which
is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
The meaning of cat proves that cats are animals. ThatIn English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your "system" >>> is incoherent and non existent.
[ .... ]
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to
Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the
observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 bytes >>> per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of stars in >>> a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets,
and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as
complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect.
More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big numbers.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200 petabytes for >>> all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
No answer?
[ .... ]
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
Hence the Subject: of this thread.
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
scope of the model itself.
André
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model
corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model
corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even mention the POE.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts'
are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to
reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical
questions.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically entail Q in this example.
You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by
'semantically entails'
(other than by claiming it relates to some
unspecified 'base meaning'), so I am not in a position to evaluate this claim.
André
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:[ .... ]
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
Symbolic logic is correct reasoning. I think what you mean is you're replacing, in your own private world, symbolic logic with incorrectA concrete example of the new total to the threadYou seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even mention the POE.Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fullyThe list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledgeWhat you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model >>> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
scope of the model itself.
André
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should constructMy point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts'It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to
reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.When we only have a system of interconnected semanticNo idea what that's supposed to mean.
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
None, but that doesn't matter. What's important is the inevitable proofWhat details about the composition of the MoonP = "The Moon is made from green cheese"On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically entail Q in this example.
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
No. You've put a lot of effort into keeping "semantically entails" asYou've refused to clarify what *you* mean byI only ever mean what the actual words actually mean.
'semantically entails'
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of theThe meaning that matters is that agreed upon and used by expert
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
What is the exact compositional meaning of the termThat's how mathematical logic works. But you can probably leave off ", regardless of how they are syntactically constructed", since that adds
"semantic entailment"?
The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment
comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic
(relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical
consequence).
In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment
is a relationship between statements where the truth
of one statement guarantees the truth of another based
strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are
syntactically constructed.
--(other than by claiming it relates to some--
unspecified 'base meaning'), so I am not in a position to evaluate this claim.
André
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the
sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that
model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is
outside the scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even
mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a
model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an
empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically
entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by 'semantically entails'
I only ever mean what the actual words actually mean.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
semantic adjective
of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail verb
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
Frege's Principle of compositionality
the principle that the meaning of a complex expression
is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions
and the rules used to combine them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
What is the exact compositional meaning of the term
"semantic entailment"?
The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment
comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic
(relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical
consequence).
In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment
is a relationship between statements where the truth
of one statement guarantees the truth of another based
strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are
syntactically constructed.
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
[ .... ]
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model >>>>> corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't even
mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
Symbolic logic is correct reasoning. I think what you mean is you're replacing, in your own private world, symbolic logic with incorrect reasoning.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts'
are simply a model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to
reality is an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical
questions.
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically >>> entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
None, but that doesn't matter.
What's important is the inevitable proof
of the principle of explosion from a contradiction. If that doesn't
happen in your so-called "correct reasoning", that that system is wrong.
You've refused to clarify what *you* mean by
'semantically entails'
I only ever mean what the actual words actually mean.
No. You've put a lot of effort into keeping "semantically entails" as confused and meaningless as possible. What I think you mean is
"logically follows from". That's not a new idea by any means.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
The meaning that matters is that agreed upon and used by expert
practitioners in the field.
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the
sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that
model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is
outside the scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't
even mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
That's not a coherent sentence of English.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a
model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an
empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not correspond
to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or another since
that is an empirical question.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and they're
not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that their terms are
based on the meanings of the words. They're going to give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does semantically >>> entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth of
the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. Relevance
doesn't enter into it.
You apparently have some other definition in mind
but have refused to state what that definition actually is.
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the
sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>>
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that
model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is
outside the scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't
even mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
That's not a coherent sentence of English.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a
model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an
empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you
might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not
correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or
another since that is an empirical question.
Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly
discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment]
is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is
inherently correct.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and
they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look at
academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that their
terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to give
actual definitions. There's a good reason for that.
It puts an enormous amount of information into very
few words.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does
semantically entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth of
the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent. Relevance
doesn't enter into it.
You are simply ignoring the word semantic.
You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused to
state what that definition actually is.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct
English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of
interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to write clearly and forcefully.
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything,
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
When we only have a system of interconnected semanticNo idea what that's supposed to mean.
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of
interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter
words, but words that are actually well-defined.
André--
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>>>> sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a >>>>>>>>> living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>>>
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is
outside the scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't
even mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
That's not a coherent sentence of English.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a
model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an
empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you
might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not
correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or
another since that is an empirical question.
Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly
discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment]
is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is
inherently correct.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
And you still haven't explained what
you mean by 'semantic entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic entailment]'. Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose.
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and
they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look
at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that
their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to
give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that.
It puts an enormous amount of information into very
few words.
It puts no information into very few words because the words themselves
are undefined.
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does
semantically entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth
of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent.
Relevance doesn't enter into it.
You are simply ignoring the word semantic.
How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property.
You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused to
state what that definition actually is.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
If you want to
rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
simply by compositionally combining their parts
which is not how natural
language actually works, let alone technical language.
If you really think compositionality is the key to everything, explain
how one is supposed to understand the meaning of 'postmodern art' by
simply combining the meanings of 'post-', 'modern', and 'art'.
André
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct
English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of
interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything,
he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter
words, but words that are actually well-defined.
André
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct >>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages >>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of
interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything,
he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter
words, but words that are actually well-defined.
Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to write clearly and forcefully.
André
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>>>>> sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat >>>>>>>>>> is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>>>>
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>>>>>> outside the scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't >>>>>> even mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
That's not a coherent sentence of English.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >>>>>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is an >>>>>> empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions.
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you
might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not
correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or
another since that is an empirical question.
Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly
discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment]
is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is
inherently correct.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
It is an assertion that proves itself true entirely
on the basis of the meaning of its words.
Fully integrated into the formal system and not
in a separate model outside of the system is the
difference between proof theoretic semantics and
truth conditional semantics. That is very difficult
for people that only know model theory and that
is only one half of what I said.
And you still haven't explained what you mean by 'semantic
entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic entailment]'.
Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose.
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and
they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look
at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that
their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going to
give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that.
It puts an enormous amount of information into very
few words.
It puts no information into very few words because the words
themselves are undefined.
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does
semantically entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth
of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent.
Relevance doesn't enter into it.
You are simply ignoring the word semantic.
How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property.
You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused
to state what that definition actually is.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
that is 100% of all of what I mean.
If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
simply by compositionally combining their parts
Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should construct >>>>> English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other languages >>>>> (such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything,
he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter
words, but words that are actually well-defined.
Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the
listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to write >> clearly and forcefully.
André
On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum
up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by
itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is
not a high school graduate and difficult for high
school graduates. It would be the same for college
grads that never heard of the term.
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the >>>>>>>>>>> sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat >>>>>>>>>>> is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature. >>>>>>>>>>>
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that >>>>>>>>> model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is >>>>>>>>> outside the scope of the model itself.
André
Not quite. The "basic facts" of the world are fully
integrated into the formal system and its formal
language. In such a system the Principle of Explosion
cannot possibly work.
You seem to be responding to some other post since my post didn't >>>>>>> even mention the POE.
A concrete example of the new total to the thread
Olcott's replacement of symbolic logic with correct reasoning
That's not a coherent sentence of English.
My point was that what you refer to as 'basic facts' are simply a >>>>>>> model, and whether those 'basic facts' correspond to reality is >>>>>>> an empirical question. Logic doesn't address empirical questions. >>>>>>>
It is not merely a model of model theory when it is
fully integrated into the formal system and thus not
a separate thing outside of the formal system.
Whether it is fully intgrated into the formal system (whatever you
might mean by that) or not, it's still a model. It may or may not
correspond to reality, and logic cannot demonstrate this one way or >>>>> another since that is an empirical question.
Fully integrating it into the formal system and utterly
discarding every inference step besides [semantic entailment]
is all that is needed to derive a formal system that is
inherently correct.
That's simply a baseless assertion.
It is an assertion that proves itself true entirely
on the basis of the meaning of its words.
Fully integrated into the formal system and not
in a separate model outside of the system is the
difference between proof theoretic semantics and
truth conditional semantics. That is very difficult
for people that only know model theory and that
is only one half of what I said.
And you still haven't explained what you mean by 'semantic
entailment', nor how it differs from '[semantic entailment]'.
Decorative brackets don't serve a purpose.
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
Each of your words could mean a variety of different things, and
they're not combined in a particularly sensible manner. If you look >>>>> at academic papers you're not going to find people claiming that
their terms are based on the meanings of the words. They're going
to give actual definitions. There's a good reason for that.
It puts an enormous amount of information into very
few words.
It puts no information into very few words because the words
themselves are undefined.
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
P = "The Moon is made from green cheese"
Q = "Donald Trump is the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"
The POE says that (P ∧ ¬P) ⊢ Q
My system requires that the meaning of the words
of P semantically entails Q. The above meanings
are unrelated thus there is no proof.
On my definition of 'semantically entails' (P ∧ ¬P) does
semantically entail Q in this example.
What details about the composition of the Moon
are semantically relevant to anything about Trump?
As far as I'm concerned, 'semantic entailment' means that the truth >>>>> of the consequence follows from the truth of the antecedent.
Relevance doesn't enter into it.
You are simply ignoring the word semantic.
How am I ignoring it? I refer to truth which is a semantic property.
You apparently have some other definition in mind but have refused
to state what that definition actually is.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
that is 100% of all of what I mean.
Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
simply by compositionally combining their parts
Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate about it.
André
On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should
construct
English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other
languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything,
he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter
words, but words that are actually well-defined.
Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate the >>> listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to
write
clearly and forcefully.
André
On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum
up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by
itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is
not a high school graduate and difficult for high
school graduates. It would be the same for college
grads that never heard of the term.
In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was 'of
or relating to meaning in language'.
So how does 'semantic meaning'
differ from ordinary 'meaning'. Presumably this word serves a purpose or
you wouldn't have included it, but without more precise definitions no
one is going to be able to figure out what that purpose is.
André
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
normal rules.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
that is 100% of all of what I mean.
Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted
simply by compositionally combining their parts
Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little
bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate
about it.
André
"dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
"semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
of semantic + entailment
On 7/10/2026 2:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should
construct
English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other
languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like "system of >>>>>>> interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, >>>>> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter >>>>> words, but words that are actually well-defined.
Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and concentrate >>>> the
listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to
write
clearly and forcefully.
André
On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum
up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by
itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is
not a high school graduate and difficult for high
school graduates. It would be the same for college
grads that never heard of the term.
In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was
'of or relating to meaning in language'.
That is what I mean. The same term also has an enormous pile
of specialized meanings. Most people bounce around all of
those and never get to the simple essence.
So how does 'semantic meaning' differ from ordinary 'meaning'.
Presumably this word serves a purpose or you wouldn't have included
it, but without more precise definitions no one is going to be able to
figure out what that purpose is.
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
compositionality.
When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
normal rules.
It doesn't break the normal rules. It follows the normal rules of
compounds which treat compounds as distinct lexical entries which have
their own definitions which may or may not be related to any of the
meanings of their constituent words.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
that is 100% of all of what I mean.
Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
Not according to my definition of 'semantic's.
And now you're using a different set of decorative brackets.
If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
And again you're thinking that English compounds can be interpreted >>>>> simply by compositionally combining their parts
Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little
bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate
about it.
André
"dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
"semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
of semantic + entailment
'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so
the compositional meaning is hardly unambiguous, If I take the most
obvious (to me) definitions, then semantic entailment would mean an entailment stemming from the truth values of the propositions involved,
and by that definition the principle of explosion most definitely counts
as a semantic entailment. You claim otherwise, so clearly you mean
something different than I do when you say 'semantic entailment'. That's
why people keep asking you to define your terms and not just to say its meaning comes from the meanings of its parts.
André
On 2026-07-10 13:33, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:28, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
When we only have a system of interconnected semantic
meanings that we traverse then incorrect reasoning is
inherently impossible.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
It is the most succinct summation of my whole system.
It means exactly what it says. If you don't know what
each word means then you can't get it.
It's just vague meaningless nonsense. As a hint, you should >>>>>>>> construct
English language sentences mainly out of short words. Other >>>>>>>> languages
(such as German) are different. When you say things like
"system of
interconnected semantic meanings", it's without clear meaning.
"system of interconnected semantic meanings"
Summing up 28 years worth of work in less than
a sentence will be hard to understand.
He's not asking for an explanation less than a sentence; If anything, >>>>>> he's looking for a *longer* explanation, but one composed of shorter >>>>>> words, but words that are actually well-defined.
Indeed. In English, short words tend to be powerful and
concentrate the
listener's/reader's mind. They're easier to use when one wishes to >>>>> write
clearly and forcefully.
André
On the other hand one longer word can sometimes sum
up the chapter of a book. "semantic meanings" by
itself is probably too difficult for anyone that is
not a high school graduate and difficult for high
school graduates. It would be the same for college
grads that never heard of the term.
In an earlier post you claimed that all 'semantic' meant to you was
'of or relating to meaning in language'.
That is what I mean. The same term also has an enormous pile
of specialized meanings. Most people bounce around all of
those and never get to the simple essence.
There is no 'simple essence'. The word can refer to any of those
specialized meanings,
meaning it doesn't have one single 'basic'
definition, contrary to what you believe.
So how does 'semantic meaning' differ from ordinary 'meaning'.
Presumably this word serves a purpose or you wouldn't have included
it, but without more precise definitions no one is going to be able
to figure out what that purpose is.
No answer? You clearly intend 'semantic' to narrow down what 'meaning'
refers to, but the definition 'of or relating to meaning in language' certainly doesn't do that.
André
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:[ .... ]
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
You're just prevaricating.And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. TheI told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying compositionality.
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
You haven't. You've been continually evasive over many exchanges ofI already have been through this too many times it seems"semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so
of semantic + entailment
that you only intend on being disagreeable.
So, how about finally saying precisely what you mean by "semanticthe compositional meaning is hardly unambiguous, If I take the most obvious (to me) definitions, then semantic entailment would mean an entailment stemming from the truth values of the propositions involved, and by that definition the principle of explosion most definitely counts as a semantic entailment. You claim otherwise, so clearly you mean something different than I do when you say 'semantic entailment'. That's why people keep asking you to define your terms and not just to say its meaning comes from the meanings of its parts.
--André--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
I already have been through this too many times it seems
that you only intend on being disagreeable.
You haven't. You've been continually evasive over many exchanges of
posts, being unwilling (or unable) to define what you mean specifically
by "semantic entailment".
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
compositionality.
I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
When someone refers to a president as a 'lame duck' to you interpret
that as anything other than a duck with an injured leg?
That is an idiomatic figure-of-speech that breaks the
normal rules.
It doesn't break the normal rules. It follows the normal rules of
compounds which treat compounds as distinct lexical entries which have
their own definitions which may or may not be related to any of the
meanings of their constituent words.
You are confused. Compounds are bed + room becomes bedroom.
semantic (adjective)
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
That's an incredibly vague and simplistic definition.
that is 100% of all of what I mean.
Then what you mean is too vague to be useful.
cats {semantically entails} everything about cats.
Not according to my definition of 'semantic's.
Sure when you define semantics to be something other than
what it inherently is to can get quite confused.
And now you're using a different set of decorative brackets.
The conventional way of specifying {semantic meaning}
compared with "literal string".
If you want to rely on dictionary definitions, at least use a
mathematical or philosophiocal dictionary, not m-w.
entail (verb)
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
[semantically entail] is the above semantic + entail.
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
And again you're thinking that English compounds can be
interpreted simply by compositionally combining their parts
Sure just like a [dead cat] means a cat that is not alive.
'dead cat' isn't a compound. You should really try learning a little
bit about how English word formation works before you pontificate
about it.
André
"dead cat" is the compositional meaning of dead + cat.
"semantic entailment" is the compositional meaning
of semantic + entailment
'Semantic' and 'entailment' both subsume a wide variety of meanings, so
I already have been through this too many times it seems
that you only intend on being disagreeable.
On 07/09/2026 02:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 02:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 3:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/09/2026 01:15 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-09 08:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
I have no idea what the 'normal meaning' of these words is nor what >>>>>> their 'base meaning' is. English words have multiple meanings which >>>>>> are
generally vaguely defined and it doesn't identify and particular
meaning
as the 'base meaning'.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
That's entirely circular. You were trying to define P ⊢ Q. Just
falling
back on what it means 'in English' doesn't elucidate anything as
'proves' means very different things in different contexts.
Mikko had wanted to know what "semantic entailment" means in
absence of
a model and you haven't answered this.
André
"I drove my car to Walmart"
entails that my motor vehicle consumed energy.
Not without additional premises that relate driving and car
to consumption and energy.
The meaning of the words of a sentence proves that
certain facts are true. Not additional premises
additional axioms.
It turns out that all HOL and type theory can beOr C or any language that supports long character strings.
encoded in Prolog even though it cannot be processed
in Prolog.
The entirely body of knowledge itself can be
directly encoded as Prolog Facts and rules.
A HOL prover could directly understand this
body of knowledge.
*This can be directly encoded as ordinary Prolog*
the objects of thought are divided into types, namely:
individuals, properties of individuals, relations
between individuals, properties of such relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>>>>>>
The usual account of "entailment" and "monotonicity"
fails to maintain monotonicity and entailment in
accounts that admit "quasi-modal logic" the "material implication".
I.e., "quasi-modal logic with material implication"
is a "non-classical logic", which some have as not a logic at all.
This is why we have modal, temporal, relevance logic
that very common-sensical
I only care about getting it correctly not all of the
many different ways to get it incorrectly.
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That seems to be the umbrella that excludes all of
the ways to get reasoning incorrectly.
and as well with Chrysippus'
moods: "very classical logic".
What you don't care still bites.
Shut Up
Any moron can denigrate mt work on the basis of
ignoring all of the words. Why do you pretend
to be a moron?
Stuff it your entire sock-puppet horde,
you petty, plagiarist, vandal, simple, thief.
On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
compositionality.
I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave was
too vague to be useful which was pointed out.
On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking
point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your
"system"
is incoherent and non existent.
[ .... ]
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes. According to >>>> Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the >>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just 200 >>>> bytes
per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of
stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, >>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as
complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect.
More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big
numbers.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200
petabytes for
all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
No answer?
[ .... ]
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
Hence the Subject: of this thread.
with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning.
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces
"every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
scope of the model itself.
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which
is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
semantic adjective
of or relating to meaning in language https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail verb
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
Frege's Principle of compositionality
the principle that the meaning of a complex expression
is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions
and the rules used to combine them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
What is the exact compositional meaning of the term
"semantic entailment"?
The exact compositional meaning of semantic entailment
comes from combining its two constituent terms — semantic
(relating to meaning and truth) and entailment (a logical
consequence).
In formal logic and linguistics, semantic entailment
is a relationship between statements where the truth
of one statement guarantees the truth of another based
strictly on their meaning, regardless of how they are
syntactically constructed.
In English it means that the meaning of the words
of a sentence proves that certain facts are true.
The meaning of cat proves that cats are animals.
That "cats are animals" is semantically entailed by the meaning
of "cat"
On 7/10/2026 5:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
compositionality.
I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave was
too vague to be useful which was pointed out.
I am defining a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy that
requires a base case. That you simply don't "believe in" a base
case seems to end this aspect of the conversation.
On 7/10/2026 5:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context of
defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
compositionality.
I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave was
too vague to be useful which was pointed out.
I am defining a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy that
requires a base case. That you simply don't "believe in" a base
case seems to end this aspect of the conversation.
On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>>> point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your
"system"
is incoherent and non existent.
[ .... ]
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes.
According to
Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in the >>>>> observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just
200 bytes
per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of
stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have planets, >>>>> and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as
complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect.
More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless big >>> numbers.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200
petabytes for
all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
No answer?
[ .... ]
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
Hence the Subject: of this thread.
with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning.
That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to
call it (or anything) "incoherent mess".
On 10/07/2026 17:51, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you include all of those in the meaning of "cat" then the sentneces >>>> "every cat is an animal", "every cat is a mammal", "every cat is a
living thing", and similar do not say anything about the nature.
All those relations are translated into placements in an
acyclic directed graph type hierarchy.
The list of every "atomic fact" of general knowledge
and the semantic relations between these facts specified
syntactically says EVERYTHING about nature.
What you've done is created a *model*. The extent to which that model
corresponds to nature is an empirical question which is outside the
scope of the model itself.
You should be careful with the word "model". It has many different and
even opposite meanings. In everyday language tyra Banks is a model, and
so is Opel Astra. For a physicist a theory is a model of the world; for
a logician the model is or is not a model of the theory, thouhg usually other, more mathematica models are more useful to them.
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which
is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
semantic adjective
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail verb
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
On 2026-07-10 22:59, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 5:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 15:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 3:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 13:30, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 12:35, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 1:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 11:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 10:09, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 10:57 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 09:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 9:51 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-10 07:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
If I say [dead cat] do you think that I mean
anything besides a cat that is not alive?
Again with the decorative brackets...
Dead cats weren't under discussion. Semantic entailment was.
The meaning of two words combined that is constructed
entirely from the meaning of each individual words.
That is the normal way that meaning always works.
The idiomatic meaning assigned to a pair of words that
has nothing to do with the meaning of the individual words
is something peculiar to terms-of-the-art.
And once you use a term like 'semantic entailment' in the context
of defining some theory you are using it as a term of the art. The
individual words both cover a wide range of meanings making it
impossible to determine what you intend simply by applying
compositionality.
I told you to you the base meanings and you didn't
understand that so I defined what base meanings are
and you didn't understand that so I gave you the
base meanings and either you or Alan simply erased
them.
Words don't have base meanings. The meaning of 'semantic' you gave
was too vague to be useful which was pointed out.
I am defining a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy that
requires a base case. That you simply don't "believe in" a base
case seems to end this aspect of the conversation.
Things might require a base in your knowledge ontology, but you haven't provided that ontology so you can't simply refer to the base meaning and expect people to know what you have decided serves as the base meaning
in your ontology. And there is no reason to assume that your ontology
works the same way that natural language does.
André
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic
"atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>>>> point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>>> "system"
is incoherent and non existent.
[ .... ]
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes.
According to
Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies in >>>>>> the
observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>>> 200 bytes
per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>>> stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have
planets,
and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as
complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and intellect. >>>> More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily meaningless
big
numbers.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200
petabytes for
all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
No answer?
[ .... ]
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
Hence the Subject: of this thread.
with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning.
That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to
call it (or anything) "incoherent mess".
Many experts have created whole system of logic to
bypass major issues.
No one here sees any of these
issues because they just take everything that they
learned by rote as the gospel.
On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which
is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic
meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no
such thing can possibly exist.
semantic adjective
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail verb
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
thus {semantic + entailment}
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
People here are so accustomed to idiomatic terms-of-the-artIn mathematical context a word pair is a separate term that needs
meanings that simply assign an unrelated meaning to a
word pair that they never understood this is not the way
that it usually works.
On 12/07/2026 03:49, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:12, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 5:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]I am utterly replacing the incoherent mess of symbolic logic
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/9/2026 12:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
The entire body of general knowledge expressed in
language is computable when all the empirical and analytic >>>>>>>>>> "atomic facts" are first written down as axioms and the
only inference step allowed is semantic entailment
specified syntactically.
That cannot be done. It stretches the word "axiom" to breaking >>>>>>>>> point.
Then fucking call it stipulated facts that can be looked up.
I'm calling it rubbish. I'm demonstrating by argument that your >>>>>>> "system"
is incoherent and non existent.
[ .... ]
"general knowledge" guesstimated at 200 petabytes.
Oh really? That's just a big number plucked out of thin air.
But let's run with it. 200 petabytes is 2 x 10^14 bytes.
According to
Wikipedia's article on galaxies, there are around 10^12 glaxies >>>>>>> in the
observable universe. So your 200 petabytes will stretch to just >>>>>>> 200 bytes
per galaxy. In the same article, it gives the average number of >>>>>>> stars in
a galaxy as around 10^8. Many of these 10^20 stars will have
planets,
and their structure, properties, and interactions will be just as >>>>>>> complicated as in our own system.
It is only all the way to the Moon 7 times when printed
out at 8-point type and it fits in one small server room
of very high capacity SSDs.
It's a big number compared with your limited imagination and
intellect.
More capabale people are less impressed with arbitrarily
meaningless big
numbers.
This is all part of your "complete" general knowledge. 200
petabytes for
all this is laughably inadequate.
The whole idea of having complete general knowledge is likewise
laughable.
No answer?
[ .... ]
The simplest idea semantic entailment is completely
specified by the syllogism. I merely extend that
to confirming whether or not a fact can be looked
up in a list of "atomic facts" or5 derived deductively
from elements of this list.
Which has next to nothing to do with symbolic logic.
I never gave a rat's ass about symbolic logic deep ship.
Hence the Subject: of this thread.
with an entirely different system of inherently correct reasoning.
That you are too lazy to learn is not a sufficient reason to
call it (or anything) "incoherent mess".
Many experts have created whole system of logic to
bypass major issues.
Usually it is sufficient to focus on some usual form of the first
order logic. Simpler systems are less powerful and stronger systems
are not as well understood. Some systems are just syntactic sugar
on the ordinary first order logic.
Sometimes it is useful to use second or higher order logic. But there
is no known complete set of valid inference rules like there is for
the first order logic.
No one here sees any of these
issues because they just take everything that they
learned by rote as the gospel.
They don't see the pot filled with gold at the end of rainbow, either.
On 12/07/2026 04:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/11/2026 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/07/2026 17:05, olcott wrote:
On 7/10/2026 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 09/07/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:
On 7/9/2026 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 08/07/2026 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 7/8/2026 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/07/2026 18:15, olcott wrote:
P ⊢ Q where the rules of inference are only
semantic entailment specified syntactically.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless
to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Is corrected to mean
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only
if it takes a form that the conclusion is semantically
entailed by its premises.
We do not use model theory to do this we use proof
theoretic semantics.
What does "semantic entailment" mean when model theory
is not used?
P ⊢ Q means syntactic derivation implements semantic
entailment encoded in syntactically the language.
This is the only inference steps allowed.
That does not answer the question. It does not specify
what "semantic entailment" means nor what inference
steps are allowed.
It is the normal meaning of the base words.
There are several normal meanings of "entailment", none of which
is compatible with the adjective "semantic". One normal meaning
is the act of setting an inheritance rule for some property.
Base meaning is the most basic and common meaning of the
English word from a dictionary. This is often the first
listing.
Which meaning is listed first depends on the dictionary. Some
dictionaries put the legal meaning first.
I am trying to get to the notion of a base semantic
meaning in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
I can't do this when everyone has the opinion that no
such thing can possibly exist.
If you know you can't do it you should instead try something else.
semantic adjective
of or relating to meaning in language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantic
entail verb
to cause or involve by necessity or as a consequence.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entail
thus {semantic + entailment}
"meaning in language" that "causes a necessary consequence"
No,
that "causes" comes neither from the emaning of "semantic"
nor from the meaning of "entail". In mathematical context
nothing causes anything.
People here are so accustomed to idiomatic terms-of-the-artIn mathematical context a word pair is a separate term that needs
meanings that simply assign an unrelated meaning to a
word pair that they never understood this is not the way
that it usually works.
its separate definition unless the meaning by ordinary composition
rules of the mathemaical meanings of the words makes sense and is
what is intended.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,127 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 36:24:37 |
| Calls: | 14,430 |
| Files: | 186,410 |
| D/L today: |
277 files (78,142K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,552,597 |