XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 7:45 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 26/11/2025 à 02:43, olcott a écrit :   
   >>   
   >> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics   
   >> that is why he called it Montague Grammar. This is   
   >> all anchored in Rudolf Carnap meaning postulates   
   >   
   > Peter, Montague Grammar does not make truth = provability.   
   > It maps English into logic — it does not turn logic into a magic   
   > incompleteness-proof shredder.   
   >   
      
   The predicate Bachelor(x) is stipulated to mean ~Married(x)   
   where the predicate Married(x) is defined in terms of billions   
   of other things such as all of the details of Human(x).   
      
   Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Willard Van Orman had no idea   
   how we know that Bachelors are unmarried. Basically we   
   just look it up in the type hierarchy, that is the simple   
   proof of its truth.   
      
   > If your claim were right, every linguist using Montague’s system would   
   > have accidentally solved Godel’s theorem in the 1970s.   
   > They didn’t.   
      
   I spoke with many people very interested in linguistics   
   on sci.lang for many years. Even ordinary semantics   
   freaks them out.   
      
   None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague   
   Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math   
   phobia. Formal semantics got them very aggravated.   
      
   > Because encoding semantics as syntax does not erase diagonalization — it   
   > just gives it nicer types.   
   >   
      
   G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)   
   Directed Graph of evaluation sequence   
   00 ↔               01 02   
   01 G   
   02 ¬               03   
   03 Prov            04   
   04 Gödel_Number_of 01  // cycle   
      
   Proves that the evaluation of the above G is stuck   
   in an infinite loop whether you understand this or not.   
      
   > Montague built a translation function.   
   > You’re treating it like a trapdoor that makes unprovable truths disappear.   
   > It doesn’t.   
   > Only your theory does that.   
      
   When True(L,x) is exactly one and the same thing as   
   Provable(L,x) then if you are honest you will admit   
   that they cannot possibly diverge thus within this   
   system Gödel incompleteness cannot possibly exist.   
      
   Seeing how this makes perfect sense and is absolutely   
   not any sort of ruse may take much more dialogue.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)