XPost: sci.math, comp.theory   
   From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 6:38 PM, Python wrote:   
   > Le 26/11/2025 à 03:36, 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:   
   >>>   
   >>> Take a normal semantic fact (like bachelor = unmarried).   
   >>>   
   >>> Declare that because some meanings can be defined, all meaning   
   >>> reduces to proof.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Do you now what an infinite loop is in programming?   
   >> If a payroll calculation is stuck in an infinite   
   >> loop is that a good thing?   
   >   
   > Peter, yes — I know what an infinite loop is in programming.   
   > And that is exactly why your analogy misses the point.   
   >   
   > An infinite loop is a runtime problem in a program.   
      
   Hummm... Not necessarily? Think of a server loop. It can halt if it gets   
   a certain command, but ideally, it wants to be up running "forever", in   
   a sense...   
      
   Think of an infinite IFS fractal loop that ideally wants to plot   
   forever. Its process runs for as long as it can. The hardware can die   
   out, but that does not mean the code halted, just its "vehicle", so to   
   speak...   
      
      
   > But Godel’s fixed point is not a program, and nobody is trying to   
   “run” it.   
   >   
   > Mathematics does not evaluate G like code.   
   > It does not simulate G, compute G, or reduce G.   
   > It reasons about its provability.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)