XPost: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/7/2025 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.53:
>> On 12/6/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.31:
>>>> On 12/5/2025 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.18:
>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.13:
>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.07:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 14.19:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 13.55:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be expressed in language is entirely composed of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) A finite set of atomic facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Every expression of language that is semantically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entailed by (1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel
definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the "theory of simple types"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as one fully integrated whole not needing model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now a giant semantic tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstacles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're fundamental truths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just showed the detailed steps making both of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them impossible in the system that I just specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your construction is impossible, as proven by Gödel's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theorem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't a theory that has no theorems satisfy all above stated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requriements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not such a formal system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's right, the body of knowledge is irrelevant here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we are not talking about elements of the body
>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that are missing or unknown truths
>>>>>>>>>> then there is no notion of actual incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>> that remains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The body of knowledge includes that certain quesstions have
>>>>>>>>> answers
>>>>>>>>> but doesn't include now what those answers are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unknowns are outside of the body of knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, we
>>>>>>>>> know that North Sentinel Island is population but we don't know
>>>>>>>>> what language is spoken there. This and other examples show that
>>>>>>>>> the body of knowledge is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If anyone anywhere knows then it is in the body of general
>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not general knowledge as it is not known to anybody outside
>>>>>>> North Sentinel Island.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know the color of my bedroom wall. Is that general knowledge?
>>>>>
>>>>>> To simply things the body of general knowledge
>>>>>> can be everything written down in any published
>>>>>> book or published paper. Also anything that can
>>>>>> be deduced from these sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> General knowledge also includes that there are claims that might be
>>>>> deducible from published knowledge or might be not, and it is not
>>>>> yet known whether or how. Examples of such claims can be found in
>>>>> published sources.
>>>
>>>> Yes this is correct.
>>>
>>> Therefore it is not correct to say that all claims decucible from
>>> general knowledge
>>
>> I never said that they were.
>
> Above you said that
>
> >>>>> To simply things the body of general knowledge
> >>>>> can be everything written down in any published
> >>>>> book or published paper. Also anything that can
> >>>>> be deduced from these sources.
>
> As I just inferred, it is not correct to say so.
That is the same as disagreeing with arithmetic.
Expressions of language that are defined in terms
of other expressions of language can be encoded
as relations between finite strings of GUIDs.
There is no reason why relations between GUIDs
cannot encode a finite set of different kinds of
relations to other GUIDs and each GUID corresponds
to one sense meaning of one word for every sense
meaning of every word.
>>> are in general knoledge. The claims that are
>>> deducible from general knoledge but neither known to be deducible from
>>> the common knowledge nor ottherwise knwon are not in general knowledge.
>>> This is an incompleteness in general knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> Claims that can be deduced from published knowledge
>> can be construed to be the body of general knowledge.
>
> And here you say it again.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
