XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> *When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*   
   >   
   > Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >> asserts its own unprovability.  … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >>   
   >> G asserts its own unprovability.   
   >>   
   >> G asserts that there are no sequence of inference   
   >> steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
   >   
   > No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with   
   > additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference   
   > steps IN F that prove the statement G.   
   >   
      
   That is not what G itself says. That is merely the   
   extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.   
      
   The barest essence of G is:   
   G asserts its own unprovability.   
      
   When we examine what this semantically entails:   
   G asserts that there are no sequence of inference   
   steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
      
      
   --   
   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)