On 7/15/2026 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:Well, perhaps if it prevents the implementation.On 14/07/2026 22:45, olcott wrote:Yes it fucking does.On 7/14/2026 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 13/07/2026 19:37, olcott wrote:>On 7/13/2026 11:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:>In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:>On 7/13/2026 8:51 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:>Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:On 12/07/2026 17:30, Alan Mackenzie wrote:[ Followup-To: set ]>In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.>A few questions:>1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?>2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta- years do
you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence
that all his basic facts and rules are correct?>3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self-reference.>This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:>Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?>No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His
question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as
an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove
your ENTIRE SYSTEM is correct?>The system needn't be proven to be correct as long as there are
sufficient disclaimers about safety critical questions including
medical and legal topics and that the sevice provider's responsibility
is limited to the amount paid fore the service. With sufficient
disclaimers one only needs to wait unti someone finds evidence that
the system is incorrect.>That is not the "system" that PO is purporting to be envisaging/ building.
He is writing about his "system" delivering absolute proven truth. I
think he is the only poster with any belief that this is even remotely
possible.
>Comenius language>
Once one assumes that the massive task of writing
down the complete set of atomic facts of general
knowledge has already been accomplished then the
table has been built so that truth can just be looked up.
With a suitable set of false assumptions (otherwise known as lies) you
can "prove" anything.
My above spec excludes that.
That is insufficient to ensure that an implementation, if there ever
would be one, would exclude it.
>
The term "fact" already excludes "lies"
That does not prevent an implementation from presenting a lie as a fact.
--
Mikko
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.