XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There exists a sequence of inference steps from   
   >>>>>> the axioms of a formal system that prove that   
   >>>>>> they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base   
   >>>>> theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that   
   >>>> prove they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that   
   >>>> prove they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that   
   >>>> prove they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that   
   >>>> prove they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is no sequence of inference steps that   
   >>>> prove they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved.   
   >>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved.   
   >>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved.   
   >>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved.   
   >>>> That is all that Gödel ever proved.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you are   
   >>> talking about and thus going into non-sense,   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition   
   >> which asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >   
   > Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but apparently   
   > you can't read.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Correctly paraphrased as:   
   >> a sequence of inference steps from axioms   
   >> that assert that they themselves do not exist.   
   >   
   > Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because you   
   > are so stupid.   
   >   
      
   a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.   
      
   The proof of such an propostion within the same   
   formal system would require a sequence of inference   
   steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
      
   > The statement, when looked at under the meaning that only exists in the   
   > meta-system, shows that in the meta-system there is a proof, a finite   
   > series of steps, that shows that in the system, the statement in the   
   > system does not have a proof, which is a finite series of steps IN THE   
   > SYSTEM (not the meta-system) but there is a infinite series of steps in   
   > the system that make it true.   
   >   
   > Thus, you show you can't tell the difference between an infinite series   
   > of steps from a finitee series of step, thus you IQ must be 0 by that   
   > scale.   
   >   
   > And, you can't tell the difference between the Meta-system and the   
   > system, which is like thinking your pet cat is a dog.   
   >   
   > The fact you keep on repeating this, and never try to answer the error   
   > pointed out just means that you can't understand what an error is,   
   > because to you truth, knowledge, fact, rules, don't mean anything   
   > because you chose to make your self just stupid and ignorant.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Gödel, Kurt 1931.   
   >> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of   
   >> Principia Mathematica And Related Systems   
   >>   
   >>> As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a finite   
   >>> sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there is an   
   >>> INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is not a   
   >>> FINITE sequence of steps in the system to prove it.   
   >>>   
   >>> It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO.   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)