XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:46, olcott a écrit :   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > Peter, repeating “infinite loop” in a loop does not turn a self-   
   > referential sentence into an evaluation process.   
   > Gödel’s fixed point is a theorem, not a subroutine.   
   >   
   > Nobody is “evaluating” G.   
   > They are reasoning about its provability.   
   >   
   > Confusing a mathematical statement with a program is exactly why you   
   > keep thinking logic is stuck in an infinite loop — you are running   
   > computation where the proof uses deduction.   
      
   You insist on making sure to continue to   
   fail to understand the deep meaning of the   
   occurs_check.   
      
   --   
   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)