XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The barest essence of G is:   
   >>>>>> G asserts its own unprovability.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in   
   >>>>> the meta system.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no   
   >>>>> number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The barest essence of that English sentence   
   >>>> taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of   
   >>> context and understand what they mean.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You don't understand that it still   
   >> retains the compositional meaning   
   >> of the meaning of its words.   
   >   
   > An the meaning of the words are based on the context.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >> asserts its own unprovability.  … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >   
   > Right, The assertion is in M   
   > The unprovability is in F   
   >   
   > Noting inconsistant with that, as M is more powerful than F   
   >   
   > Your stupidity is amazing.   
   >   
   > You really have burnt out your brain by your self-brainwashing.   
   >   
      
   In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines,   
   the principle of compositionality is the principle that   
   the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the   
   meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules   
   used to combine them. The principle is also called   
   Frege's principle, because Gottlob Frege is widely   
   credited for the first modern formulation of it.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality   
   Context is an entirely different thing.   
      
   >>   
   >>> I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to   
   >>> understand the basics of communication, or sematics.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)