XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2025 1:02 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 17/11/2025 18:16, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-17, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-17, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> Yes and now if you could just translate that   
   >>>> mere baseless rhetoric into actual reasoning   
   >>>> with a sound basis.   
   >>>   
   >>> Remember, you reject actual reasoning with a sound   
   >>> basis as learned-by-rote conventional  wisdom,   
   >>> which is closed-minded.   
   >>   
   >> I mean, you've already rejected the actual with-a-sound-basis reasoning   
   >> of Turing, Gödel, ...   
   >   
   >   
   > What is the reasoning that concludes that the reasonings of Turing and   
   > of Goedel have a sound basis and does /that/ reasoning also have a sound   
   > basis?   
   >   
      
   This is exactly the kind of deep insight that   
   they totally lack. What they go by is: textbooks   
   say it and textbooks are inherently infallible.   
      
   They might not even understand what the term:   
   "sound basis" actually means.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)