XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/15/2026 1:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >   
   > In comp.theory Tristan Wibberley   
   >  wrote:   
   >> On 15/02/2026 01:41, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 2/14/26 3:59 PM, polcott wrote:   
   >   
   > [ .... ]   
   >   
   >>>> So it looks like you are saying that no one can count   
   >>>> until after they first count to infinity?   
   >   
   >>> No, he is pointing out that if you claim to encode ALL the knowledge   
   >>> that is expressible in language, you can't stop until you finish, and   
   >>> since there are an infinite number of those in Peano Arithmetic, you   
   >>> can't stop at any finite number.   
   >   
   >> You're talking about decompressing the encoding of knowledge. Stating   
   >> the axioms (and full detail of inference rules) symbolically is   
   >> sufficient to /encode/ the knowledge if you have lambda calculus or   
   >> illative combinatory logic.   
   >   
   > Olcott's system, by his own admission, is insufficiently powerful to   
   > express a true proposition it can't prove.  Thus Peano arithmetic is   
   > outside of its scope.  You can't count in Olcott's system.   
   >   
      
   Unintentionally counter-factual.   
   You merely lack a sufficient grasp of Proof Theoretic Semantics.   
   PTS is the exact same ideas that  have been saying for many   
   years. The only difference is that now you can look up and   
   see all of the details of exactly how I was right all along.   
      
   >> --   
   >> Tristan Wibberley   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)