> The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment.

Huh? We're about six decades past that moment.

> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers.

What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.

> I have a PhD in computational logic.

And you don't know how the peer-review system works?

Just a hunch but Claude saying your work is "PhD level" does not count

I know that it doesn't work.

Amongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?

Your (many) replies on this topic are being down voted for a reason; please either post substantive comments or stop.

Yes, for a reason, but not a reasonable reason, but the same reason you have for your comment: you just don’t know any better.

Something like this sketch work for you?

peer(X, 0) :- founding_peer(X).

electorate(T, count<Y>) :- peer(Y, T).

support(X, T, count<Y>) :- candidate(X), peer(Y, T), recognizes(Y, X, T+1).

peer(X, T+1) :- support(X, T, Votes), electorate(T, Total), 2 * Votes > Total.

Still waiting for a definition. People giving nonsense reviews is a feature of the peer review system though, yes.

I want to ensure your PhD is actually from somebody who is acknowledged in the system of peers I bought into, before I want to risk wasting more of my time defining and explain while guessing at your ability to parse and understand them.

Or you could just give me a sensible definition.