XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about its   
   > provability in the base system.   
   >   
      
   This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"   
   the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence   
   is semantically incoherent.   
      
      
   > You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.   
   >   
      
   I focus on the details that everyone else has been   
   indoctrinated to ignore.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal Systems, and   
   > their meta-systems.   
   >   
      
   This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"   
   the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence   
   is semantically incoherent.   
      
   Sentences that are semantically incoherent are not true.   
   This is ignored because a meta level version of the same   
   sentence can be made true on the basis of this incoherence.   
      
   G := (F ⊬ G)   
   a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms   
   of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.   
      
   > The proof was NOT in the same system, but in a meta-system built from   
   > that system.   
   >   
      
   To hide the fact of the incoherence as was shown above.   
      
   > It shows, via a finite proof in the meta-system, that there does exist a   
   > sequence of infinite length in the system to show the statement is true,   
   > but their can not be a finite length sequence in the system.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving you are to stupid to understand this, as   
      
   The actual stupidity is how mathematicians believe that   
   the foundations of math are inherently infallible as if   
   they themselves are the actual mind of God.   
      
   > you don't understand that two different systems ARE different systems,   
   > but meta-system can know details of their base system, and that there is   
   > a difference between infinite and finite. THis shows your intelegence to   
   > be near zero.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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)