XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 8:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-25 19:08, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/25/2025 8:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-25 18:43, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/25/2025 7:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-25 17:52, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/25/2025 6:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-25, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Gödel incompleteness can only exist in systems that divide   
   >>>>>>>> their syntax from their semantics ...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> And, so, just confuse syntax for semantics, and all is fixed!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Things such as Montague Grammar are outside of your   
   >>>>>> current knowledge. It is called Montague Grammar   
   >>>>>> because it encodes natural language semantics as pure   
   >>>>>> syntax.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You're terribly confused here. Montague Grammar is called 'Montague   
   >>>>> Grammar' because it is due to Richard Montague.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Montague Grammar presents a theory of natural language   
   >>>>> (specifically English) semantics expressed in terms of logic.   
   >>>>> Formulae in his system have a syntax. They also have a semantics.   
   >>>>> The two are very much distinct.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Montague Grammar is the syntax of English semantics   
   >>>   
   >>> I can't even make sense of that. It's a *theory* of English semantics.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> *Here is a concrete example*   
   >> 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).   
   >   
   > A concrete example of what? That's certainly not an example of 'the   
   > syntax of English semantics'. That's simply a stipulation involving two   
   > predicates.   
   >   
   > André   
   >   
      
   It is one concrete example of how a knowledge ontology   
   of trillions of predicates can define the finite set   
   of atomic facts of the world.   
      
   *Actually read this, this time*   
   Kurt Gödel in his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic gave the following   
   definition of the "theory of simple types" in a footnote:   
      
   By the theory of simple types I mean the doctrine which says that the   
   objects of thought (or, in another interpretation, the symbolic   
   expressions) are divided into types, namely: individuals, properties of   
   individuals, relations between individuals, properties of such relations   
      
   That is the basic infrastructure for defining all *objects of thought*   
   can be defined in terms of other *objects of thought*   
      
   --   
   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)