XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 1:12 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 25/11/2025 à 22:09, olcott a écrit :   
   >> On 11/25/2025 3:03 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 25/11/2025 à 22:01, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> On 11/25/2025 2:56 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>> Le 25/11/2025 à 21:20, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 2:05 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 11/25/25 10:46 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own   
   >>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its   
   >>>>>>>>>> return,   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!!   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I made the code public; another person was able to build and get   
   >>>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>>> same results.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Yes, it's a growing conspiracy against you, like the whole thing   
   >>>>>>>> about   
   >>>>>>>> the world being round.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> it is kinda nuts how uniformly retarded people are about this   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I am working on building a foundation that can be   
   >>>>>> published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only   
   >>>>>> possible because of the excellent feedback that I   
   >>>>>> have received from LLM systems. Every conversation   
   >>>>>> that I have with an LLM system is brand new. This   
   >>>>>> allows me to present my view ever more succinctly.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It turns out that my new formal foundation for   
   >>>>>> correct reasoning easily utterly eliminates   
   >>>>>> all undecidability and undefinability and it   
   >>>>>> does this by simply fully integrating semantics   
   >>>>>> syntactically in its formal language.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Both Montague Grammar and the CycL language   
   >>>>>> of the Cyc project already do this.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Semantic logical entailment is the only inference   
   >>>>>> step. My system basically extends the syllogism   
   >>>>>> to cover the entire body of all knowledge that   
   >>>>>> can be expressed in language.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Neither CycL nor Peter Olcott’s claims refute Gödel-style logical   
   >>>>> incompleteness.   
   >>>>> Below is the clear, technical explanation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 1. What Gödel’s incompleteness theorems actually say   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem applies to any formal system   
   >>>>> that is:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Recursively axiomatizable (axioms and inference rules can be listed   
   >>>>> by a program),   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Consistent,   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Sufficiently expressive to encode basic arithmetic (Robinson   
   >>>>> arithmetic Q or stronger).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Then:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There exist true statements of arithmetic that the system cannot   
   >>>>> prove.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No clever notation, ontology language, or knowledge-base trick can   
   >>>>> bypass this, because the theorem is about computability +   
   >>>>> representation of arithmetic, not about the syntax of the language.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem says that such a system   
   >>>>> cannot prove its own consistency (again: subject to the above   
   >>>>> conditions).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> These results are fully stable under changes of language, ontology,   
   >>>>> semantic layers, etc.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 2. Does CycL avoid incompleteness?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No. CycL is an ontology language used by the Cyc project to encode   
   >>>>> commonsense knowledge using a vast collection of predicates, rules,   
   >>>>> and microtheories. But:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> CycL is not a complete formalization of arithmetic.   
   >>>>> Its microtheories intentionally avoid global consistency because   
   >>>>> knowledge is context-dependent.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Cyc as a whole is not a single coherent formal system satisfying   
   >>>>> Gödel’s conditions.   
   >>>>> It is a heterogeneous, context-indexed collection of theories, some   
   >>>>> of which contradict others.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Because it is not a single consistent recursively axiomatizable   
   >>>>> theory, Gödel’s theorems don’t even apply globally—but that does   
   >>>>> not mean Cyc “defeats incompleteness”; it just lives outside the   
   >>>>> scope of the theorem.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Cyc’s strategy is not “beat incompleteness”; it is “use many   
   >>>>> partial microtheories and logical levels contextually”.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is like saying a library containing many inconsistent books   
   >>>>> “defeats incompleteness” — it does not; it simply is not a single   
   >>>>> formal theory.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Conclusion:   
   >>>>> CycL cannot be used to derive Peano arithmetic in a way that would   
   >>>>> make it complete, and Cyc does not claim otherwise.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 3. Do Peter Olcott’s claims refute incompleteness?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No. Peter Olcott is known online for repeatedly claiming to have   
   >>>>> “resolved” or “invalidated” Gödel’s incompleteness or   
   Turing’s   
   >>>>> halting problem.   
   >>>>> His claims are universally rejected by logicians because they   
   >>>>> misunderstand the formal structure of the theorems.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In all variants of his claims:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> He proposes procedures that assume access to semantic truth,   
   >>>>> something incompleteness forbids a formal system from capturing   
   >>>>> internally.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Or he proposes recognition algorithms that fail on classic   
   >>>>> diagonal/ self-reference constructions but does not notice the   
   >>>>> failure.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Or he builds systems that are not recursively axiomatizable, and   
   >>>>> therefore Gödel’s theorem does not apply — but then he claims   
   >>>>> “defeat” rather than “dodging the premises”.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The pattern is always:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Change the problem or the assumptions → claim the original theorem   
   >>>>> is wrong.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is equivalent to saying “I solved the halting problem… for   
   >>>>> programs that I forbid from diagonalizing.”   
   >>>>> That is not a refutation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 4. Why these approaches cannot refute incompleteness   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Gödel incompleteness is a meta-theorem.   
   >>>>> Any attempt to build a complete system for arithmetic must fail   
   >>>>> because:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If the system is algorithmic, there’s a diagonal sentence G such that   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If the system is consistent: it cannot prove G.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That is true.   
   >>>> With my system there is one single all encompassing   
   >>>> formal system that contains every element of general   
   >>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Because the formal language has all semantics fully   
   >>>> integrated into its syntax True(x) is exactly the   
   >>>> same thing as Provable(x). If you can't prove it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)