Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.ai.philosophy    |    Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this    |    59,235 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 59,048 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Mikko    |
|    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Closing_the_gap_of_G=C3=    |
|    15 Jan 26 14:37:24    |
      XPost: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/15/2026 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:       > On 15/01/2026 07:30, olcott wrote:       >> On 1/14/2026 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       >>> On 1/14/26 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:       >>>> Interpreting incompleteness as a gap between mathematical truth and       >>>> proof depends on truth-conditional semantics; once this is replaced       >>>> by proof-theoretic semantics a framework not yet sufficiently       >>>> developed at the time of Gödel’s proof the notion of such a gap       >>>> becomes unfounded.       >>>>       >>>       >>> But that isn't what Incompleteness is about, so you are just showing       >>> your ignorance of the meaning of words.       >>>       >>> You can't just "change" the meaning of truth in a system.       >>>       >>       >> Yet that is what happens when you replace the foundational basis       >> from truth-conditional semantics to proof-theoretic semantics.       >       > Gödel constructed a sentence that is correct by the rules of first       > order Peano arithmetic              within truth conditional semantics and non-well-founded       in proof theoretic semantics. All of PA can be fully       expressed in proof theoretic semantics. Even G can be       expressed, yet rejected as semantically non-well-founded.              > but neither a theorem nor the negaition of       > a theorem of Peano artihmetic. Being a theorem does not depend on       > semantics, only on the existence of a syntatically valid proof.              That incorrectly assumes syntax always carries coherent       semantics.              > Gödel's sentence can be interpreted as a perfiectly valid game.              Where one of the players cheats.              > That at the start of the game neither player can choose a strategy       > that ensures the winning does not invalidate the game.       >              Proof theoretic semantics is the actual way that       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       has always worked.              --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca