XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/27/2025 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/27/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> A system such all semantic meaning of the formal   
   >> system is directly encoded in the syntax of the   
   >> formal language of the formal system making   
   >> ∀x ∈ L (Provable(L,x) ≡ True(L,x))   
   >   
   > Which is IMPOSSIBLE, as for any sufficiently expressive system, as it   
   > has been shown that for a system that can express the Natural Numbers,   
   > we can build a measure of meaning into the elements that they did not   
   > originally have.   
   >   
      
   It would seem that way from your limited frame-of-reference.   
   It turns out that the entire body of general knowledge   
   expressed in language can be expressed this way.   
      
   >>   
   >> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >> is reliably computable by the above formalism.   
   >   
   > But it can only apply to limited systems, namely the systems smaller   
   > than the proof of incompleteness specified.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I have thought this through for 30,000 hours over   
   >> 28 years.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > And you should have figured out its problems a lot earlier.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)