XPost: sci.logic, comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/15/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 13/12/2025 17:55, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/13/2025 5:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> olcott kirjoitti 8.12.2025 klo 21.05:   
   >>>> On 12/8/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> olcott kirjoitti 7.12.2025 klo 19.15:   
   >>>>>> On 12/7/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.46:   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/6/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.10:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.11:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.13:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.24:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:43 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:41, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:30, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems that divide   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and all is fixed!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as pure   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntax.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called 'Montague Grammar' because it is due   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Richard Montague.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (specifically English) semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed in terms of logic. Formulae in his   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system have a syntax. They also have a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics. The two are very much distinct.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of English semantics.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is a concrete example*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Married(x)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of billions   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other things such as all of the details of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Human(x).   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of 'the syntax of English semantics'.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply a stipulation involving two predicates.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trillions of predicates can define the finite set   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of atomic facts of the world.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the topic under discussion was the relationship   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between syntax and semantics in Montague Grammar, not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how knowledge ontologies are represented. So this   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't an example in anyway relevant to the discussion.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Actually read this, this time*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave the following definition of the "theory of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple types" in a footnote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which says that the objects of thought (or, in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another interpretation, the symbolic expressions)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are divided into types, namely: individuals,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of individuals, relations between   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals, properties of such relations   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the basic infrastructure for defining all   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *objects of thought*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know full well what a theory of types is. It has   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the relationship between syntax   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and semantics.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That particular theory of types lays out the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how all *objects of thought* can be defined in terms   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of other *objects of thought* such that the entire body   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge that can be expressed in language can be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a single coherent formal system.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typing “objects of thought” doesn’t make all truths   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable — it only prevents ill-formed expressions.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your system looks complete, it’s because you threw   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away every sentence that would have made it incomplete.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ALL *objects of thought* are defined   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in terms of other *objects of thought* then   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)