XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:34, olcott a écrit :   
   >> On 11/25/2025 8:09 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>> Le 26/11/2025 à 03:03, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Réponse proposée (courte, mordante, ASCII-safe)   
   >>>   
   >>> Peter, you keep repeating the same pattern:   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Because you utterly refuse to pay enough attention.   
   >>   
   >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried).   
   >>>   
   >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning   
   >>> reduces to proof.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> All *objects of thought* can be defined in terms of other   
   >> *objects of thought*   
   >>   
   >> 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, etc.   
   >>   
   >>> Then insist that since in your system True = Provable by definition,   
   >>> Godel “cannot possibly exist.”   
   >>>   
   >>> But that is not a refutation — that is simply renaming the problem   
   >>> out of existence.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your “directed graph infinite loop” does not show an error in Godel;   
   >>> it shows that Prolog refuses cyclic terms.   
   >>> Mathematics does not.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That you fail to understand that it conclusively   
   >> proves that the expression is semantically   
   >> unsound is your ignorance on not my mistake.   
   >   
   > Peter, your entire argument now rests on one mistake:   
   >   
   > You think that a self-referential fixed point is “semantically unsound”   
   > because Prolog refuses to unify a cyclic term.   
   >   
      
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
      
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
      
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
      
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
   The evaluation of the expression is stuck in an infinite loop   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)