XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk   
   > about, so you do to soething irrelevent.   
   >   
      
   Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability   
   dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences   
   are incoherent by using the meta-level.   
      
   This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences   
   are not provable and not true.   
      
   The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable   
   and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they   
   are semantically incoherent.   
      
   The proper treatment is to toss these sentences out as   
   incoherent. The proper treatment is not to create a   
   meta-level that simply ignores this incoherence.   
      
   Tarski's metatheory        Tarski's theory   
   This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true   
      
   ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   LP = not(true(LP)).   
   ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   false.   
      
   In meta-F                        In F   
   This sentence cannot be proven: "This sentence cannot be proven" is true   
      
   ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   false.   
      
      
   --   
   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)