*This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.

*This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the
analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic
knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the
semantic meanings that make it true.

This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking
this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable
expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.

True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic
meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel
that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.

*This is similar to Wittgenstein*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/23/23 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
> Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.
>
> *This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the
> analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic
> knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the
> semantic meanings that make it true.

Right, and the body of analytical truth accepts that this connection is
allowed to be infinite in length. Analytical KNOWLEDGE requires the
connection to be finite in length, so Analytical Truth accepts that
there can be TRUTHS that might not be KNOWABLE.

>
> This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
> Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking
> this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable
> expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.

No, the BOAK knows that there are TRUTHS in the BOAT that can't be in BOAK.

So, if you mean there can;t be something that is KNOWN that can't be
proven, yes, you are right, but the analytical system based on all
knowledge includes the analitcal rules to allow other statements to be
TRUE (even if not Provable), so your "BOAK" isn't complete,

Now, if you mean a system that has just every statement in BOAK but NO
rules to allow determination of new truths, such a system is absoultely
WORTHLESS.

>
> True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
> Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic
> meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel
> that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.

But if your system BOAK doesn't allow any determination of new Truths,
then it doesn't meet the requirement of Tarski to apply.

In fact, it seems you are trying to define Logic as a dead subject, as
nothing new can be ever known.

>
> *This is similar to Wittgenstein*
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>

On 12/23/2023 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
> Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.
>
> *This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the
> analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic
> knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the
> semantic meanings that make it true.
>
> This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
> Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking
> this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable
> expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.
>
> True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
> Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic
> meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel
> that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.
>
> *This is similar to Wittgenstein*
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>

To the extent that truths require infinite proofs such as
the Goldbach conjecture they are excluded from the BOAK
because their truth value remains unknown thus are not knowledge.
We know that the GC is true or false, yet do not know which.

Anything that cannot be proven or refuted from the axioms of
BOAK is defined as not a member of BOAK. This prevents
the Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
from applying to the BOAK.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/23/23 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/23/2023 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>> Most importantly analytical truthmaker theory must be understood.
>>
>> *This is true by definition* Within the body of analytical truth of the
>> analytic/synthetic distinction every element of the body of analytic
>> knowledge (BOAK) is true entirely on the basis of its connection to the
>> semantic meanings that make it true.
>>
>> This proves that Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
>> Theorem cannot apply to the body of analytical knowledge (BOAK). Lacking
>> this connection excludes an expression from the BOAK, thus undecidable
>> expressions cannot exist within the BOAK.
>>
>> True(x) is defined by the above, within the BOAK thus refuting Tarski.
>> Every element of the BOAK has a provability connection to its semantic
>> meanings truthmaker within the BOAK thus refuting both Tarski and Gödel
>> that say this cannot correctly and consistently accomplished.
>>
>> *This is similar to Wittgenstein*
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf
>>
>
> To the extent that truths require infinite proofs such as
> the Goldbach conjecture they are excluded from the BOAK
> because their truth value remains unknown thus are not knowledge.
> We know that the GC is true or false, yet do not know which.

So, are you doing this by saying that your logic system can not ever
prove more statements (in which case it is worthless), or that your
logic system has redefined the rules of logic, at which point your BOAK
includes statements that it can no longer prove based on its own logic?

>
> Anything that cannot be proven or refuted from the axioms of
> BOAK is defined as not a member of BOAK. This prevents
> the Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness and Tarski's Undefinability
> from applying to the BOAK.
>

What are the "axioms" of BOAK?

Is it ALL of the current "Body of Analytical Knowledge", at which point
you are just saying you have a knowledge system that can not prove
anything that isn't an axiom, and thus is "worthless" for expanding
knowledge, or do you establish only a limited set of Axioms, and run
into the issue that some of the BOAK can't be proven by your restricted
logic, because they were proven with the wider logic?

You can't restrict the logic, and at the same time accept what the
broader logic proved, except by accepting everything as an axiom.

So, you are just showing the fundamental issue with your theory.

On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*

Then don't post it to comp.theory.

On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>
> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>

This also equally applies to computability.
Some of the basic concepts of computability
have incoherence hard-wired into them.

For example three computer scientists essentially
agree that the halting problem is essentially
a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
They use different yet equivalent terminology.

The lead author of these three specifically agrees
that the halting problem <is> an incorrect question.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/23/23 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>
>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>
>
> This also equally applies to computability.
> Some of the basic concepts of computability
> have incoherence hard-wired into them.

Name them.

>
> For example three computer scientists essentially
> agree that the halting problem is essentially
> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
> They use different yet equivalent terminology.
I suspect that you don't understand what they are saying,

And, unless you can actually PROVE what you are saying (that the halting
problem is actually self-contradictory) you are just proving you are
using the fallacy of authority.

>
> The lead author of these three specifically agrees
> that the halting problem <is> an incorrect question.
>

I don't think so.

If seems more likely that you are just a stupid liar.

Your arguements HAVE been totally discredited, and the one authority you
named, when we look at the actual words used, show your misundestanding
of what he said, and other conversations with him have proved thus.

You are just proving that you don't actually know how to use logic.

On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>
>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>
>
> This also equally applies to computability.
> Some of the basic concepts of computability
> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>
> For example three computer scientists essentially
> agree that the halting problem is essentially
> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.

Anyone can find three idiots.

On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>
>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>
>>
>> This also equally applies to computability.
>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>
>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>
> Anyone can find three idiots.
>

Zero idiots can become PhD computer science professors.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>
>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>
>>
>> This also equally applies to computability.
>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>
>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>
> Anyone can find three idiots.
>

The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
different meaning thus is a different question.

Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
context of who is asked.

As a concrete example the question:
"Are you a little girl?"
has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
> On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>>
>>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This also equally applies to computability.
>>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>>
>>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>> Anyone can find three idiots.
>>
>
> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>
> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
> different meaning thus is a different question.
>
> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
> context of who is asked.
>
> As a concrete example the question:
> "Are you a little girl?"
> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God, court
documents show.

Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100
magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
court documents said.

Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy County,
and his bond was set at $200,000.

The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
appearance is scheduled for May 4.

On 12/24/2023 10:04 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
>> On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>>>
>>>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This also equally applies to computability.
>>>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>>>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>>>
>>>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>>>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>>>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>
>>> Anyone can find three idiots.
>>>
>>
>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>
>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>
>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>> context of who is asked.
>>
>> As a concrete example the question:
>> "Are you a little girl?"
>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>
> https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
>
> A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
> said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God, court
> documents show.
>
> Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
> March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
> During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
> pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
> seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100
> magazines and pictures of child pornography.
>
> According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
> the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
> he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
> court documents said.
>
> Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
> pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy County,
> and his bond was set at $200,000.
>
> The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
> appearance is scheduled for May 4.
>
>

Case dismissed November 17, 2016
Ad Hominem does not count as a rebuttal.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/24/23 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>>
>>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This also equally applies to computability.
>>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>>
>>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>> Anyone can find three idiots.
>>
>
> Zero idiots can become PhD computer science professors.
>

No, there are PLENTY of idiots that become professors, even with PhDs.

I suspect you haven't been close enough to a PhD program to understand
what it actually means. It CAN be a major achievement, but without
seeing the work done for it, it can also be essentially meaningless.

I guess you aren't smart enough to know that.

After all, the old saying is those that can't do, teach, pointing out
that SOME people become teachers because they can't actually do the work
well enough to actually get results.

Of course, since you refuse to actually reveal who most of these are, or
what they ACTUALLY agreed to, you have ZERO actual athorites that you
are hanging your fallacy of proof by athority on, showing how little you
actually understand how things work.

And, we actually don't need any idiot PhD Computer Science Professors,
we just need ONE Idiot trying to claim what they say supports his
theories, when he has already shown form one example that he is actually
incapable of understanding what the words actually mean.

On 12/24/23 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>>
>>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This also equally applies to computability.
>>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>>
>>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>
>> Anyone can find three idiots.
>>
>
> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.

So, what is "Self-Contradictory" about the actual problem?

Do you agree that all actual programs, as defined in Computability
Theory, will either halt of not?

(If not, show one example of an actual program that will either
sometimes halt and sometimes not when given the exact say input, or will
somehow neither halt or not)

>
> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
> different meaning thus is a different question.

How?

Does the input D represent a program that will halt with its specified
input or not?

How can that depend on who you ask to try to predict it actual behavior?

Maybe your problem is that your "Termination analyzer" isn't trying to
determine that answer to the wrong question. It isn't being asked if
"Its" simulation will halt, it is being asked if the program when run
will halt, and any "simulation" attempted of that input MUST match that
behavior to be a valid substitution.

>
> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
> context of who is asked.

And the context is FULLY specified in the question. It is asking about
the behavior of the actual execution of the program described to it.

>
> As a concrete example the question:
> "Are you a little girl?"
> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.

And that example needs the pronoun "You", there is no equivalent to a
pronoun in the actual halting question.

"Does the machine and input represented by the input Halt when run"

No pronoun to change the context.

>
> H and H1 and D are shown in this source-code
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c>

So?

H gives the wrong answer, so isn't correct.

H1 isn't the machine that your particular D was built to refute, so it
giving the right answer is meaningless.

Remember, D includes the copy of the code of the decider that it is to
refute, so, since D doesn't include H1's code, it can't be the needed
input to show H1 wrong.

You are just proving you don't understand any of the basic terms.

Note, your programs also fail to actually meet the requirements as you
have no "seperate" program "H" (or "H1") and input "D" but just one
bundled mess that can not actually be decomposed into the needed
independent machine and input.

This just shows your total lack of understanding of the problem.

On 12/24/23 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/24/2023 10:04 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 24/12/2023 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 12/24/2023 4:42 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/23/2023 3:06 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/23/23 17:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> *This cannot be understood outside of the philosophy of logic*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then don't post it to comp.theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This also equally applies to computability.
>>>>> Some of the basic concepts of computability
>>>>> have incoherence hard-wired into them.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example three computer scientists essentially
>>>>> agree that the halting problem is essentially
>>>>> a self-contradictory (thus incorrect) question.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone can find three idiots.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The halting problem <is> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question
>>> when posed to termination analyzer H with input D.
>>>
>>> When posed to termination analyzer H1 with input D the question has a
>>> different meaning thus is a different question.
>>>
>>> Linguistics understands that the same word-for-word question can
>>> have an entirely different meaning based on the linguistic
>>> context of who is asked.
>>>
>>> As a concrete example the question:
>>> "Are you a little girl?"
>>> has different correct answers depending on who is asked.
>>
>> https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
>>
>> A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
>> said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
>> court documents show.
>>
>> Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
>> in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
>> investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
>> with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
>> reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
>> than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.
>>
>> According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
>> believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
>> also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
>> he was God, court documents said.
>>
>> Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
>> pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
>> County, and his bond was set at $200,000.
>>
>> The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
>> appearance is scheduled for May 4.
>>
>>
>
> Case dismissed November 17, 2016
> Ad Hominem does not count as a rebuttal.
>

So, do you deny that you WERE found with those materials?
or that you made the claim indicated?

Note, "Case Dismissed" doesn't mean found innocent, or charges found to
be incorrect.

It means that for some reason they decided not to proceed.

On 12/24/23 17:04, Python wrote:
>
> https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
>
> A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
> said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God, court
> documents show.
>
> Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
> March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
> During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
> pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
> seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100
> magazines and pictures of child pornography.
>
> According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
> the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
> he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
> court documents said.
>
> Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
> pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy County,
> and his bond was set at $200,000.
>
> The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
> appearance is scheduled for May 4.
>

Geo-blocked. This can't be the same Peter Olcott... can it? This one
doesn't call himself God.

On 12/24/23 1:28 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 12/24/23 17:04, Python wrote:
>>
>> https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218
>>
>> A 60-year-old Sarpy County man accused of possessing child pornography
>> said he thought it was legal because he believed that he was God,
>> court documents show.
>>
>> Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
>> in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
>> investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
>> with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
>> reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
>> than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.
>>
>> According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
>> believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
>> also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
>> he was God, court documents said.
>>
>> Olcott is charged with one felony count of possession of child
>> pornography. He waived his preliminary hearing Tuesday in Sarpy
>> County, and his bond was set at $200,000.
>>
>> The case now heads to district court for trial. Olcott's next court
>> appearance is scheduled for May 4.
>>
>
> Geo-blocked. This can't be the same Peter Olcott... can it? This one
> doesn't call himself God.

He has effectively admitted that this case refers to him. He seems to
think that just because the courts seemed to have dropped the case
(haven't heard the basis of that) that this means what happened didn't
happen.