XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/30/2025 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/30/25 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/30/2025 12:45 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:   
   >>> Am 29.12.2025 um 21:27 schrieb Richard Damon:   
   >>>> On 12/29/25 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/29/2025 1:50 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:   
   >>>>>> Am 29.12.2025 um 16:25 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>>>> That you say that without bothering to understand   
   >>>>>>> the full depth of what I am saying is very callous.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If someone thinks 30.000 hours about a dozen lines of code he is   
   >>>>>> sick.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> My 28 year goal has been to make   
   >>>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>>> reliably computable.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *Here is a key element of that*   
   >>>>> 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))   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In other words, you wasted your life trying to do something you   
   >>>> don't understand.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Since in your system, words do not need to have their actual   
   >>>> meaning, NOTHING can be truthfully derived from the words.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your problem is you fundamentally don't understand the basics of   
   >>>> what you are talking about, because you CHOSE to remain ignorant of   
   >>>> the field, and chose instead to try to derive meaning by GUESSING   
   >>>> without knowledge, and calling it "first principles", not even   
   >>>> knowing what that means.   
   >>>   
   >>> Engaging with Pete's arguments in a meaningful way is just as stupid   
   >>> as his delusion.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Not one person was every able to find a single   
   >> mistake with my actual reasoning and you repeat   
   >> this mere ad hominem.   
   >>   
   >> The biggest issue in technical forums is that   
   >> no one can think outside of the box. They construe   
   >> the foundations of math, logic and computer   
   >> science as infallible even when these foundations   
   >> of been proven to be inconsistent.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Sure we have.   
   >   
      
   So then you explain to me the details of how the   
   foundations of math, logic and computer science   
   can be redefined to make:   
      
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   reliably computable.   
      
   > You are just too stupid to understand, and just reject the truth of the   
   > world to live in your own world of lies.   
   >   
   > That is why you can't find any foundation to build you system on,   
   > because it is just baseless.   
      
      
   --   
   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)