XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: acm@muc.de   
      
   [ Followup-To: set ]   
      
   In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
      
   >> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>> dart200  wrote:   
      
   [ .... ]   
      
   >>> *Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*   
      
   >>> (a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can   
   >>>      be expressed in language is entirely composed of   
   >>>    (1) A finite set of atomic facts   
   >>>    (2) Every expression of language that is semantically   
   >>>        entailed by (1)   
   >>> (b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning   
   >>>      Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition   
   >>>      of the "theory of simple types"   
   >>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944   
   >>>      Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically   
   >>>      as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory   
      
   >>> We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness   
   >>> and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if   
   >>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. It   
   >>> is now a giant semantic tautology.   
      
   >> You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not obstacles.   
   >> They're fundamental truths.   
      
   > I just showed the detailed steps making both of   
   > them impossible in the system that I just specified.   
   > A counter-example is categorically impossible.   
      
   Your construction is impossible, as proven by Gödel's Incompleteness   
   Theorem.   
      
   You didn't "show" anything.  You just waved your hands and expect   
   everybody to accept your continually repeated falsehoods.   
      
   >>>>> "this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"   
      
   >>>> As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs   
   >>>> of the Halting Theorem.  This is also not the same as "This sentence is   
   >>>> false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.   
      
      
   >>> It is isomorphic.   
      
   >> Stop using mathematical terms you don't understand.  There is no   
   >> isomorphism here.  Your assertion is a category error.   
      
   > I used that term correctly and you cannot actually   
   > show otherwise.   
      
   I suggest you look up isomorphism in Wikipedia to find out what it   
   actually means.   
      
   >>>> None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth.   
   >>>> They are part of the truth that we understand.  They delineate   
   >>>> fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular   
   >>>> that truth is more subtle than provability.   
      
   >>> That is bullshit as I have just proven.   
      
   >> Every time you use the word "proven" you appear to be lying.  I can't   
   >> recall any occurrence where you were telling the truth.   
      
   > When a counter-example to my claim is categorically   
   > impossible then I have proven this claim even if   
   > you fail to understand that this is the generic   
   > way that all actual proof really works.   
      
   It has nothing to do with my understanding, and a great deal to do with   
   your lack of it.  You have not proven that a counter example to whatever   
   it is you're talking about is "categorically impossible".  You can't,   
   since you lack the prerequisites to understand what constitutes a proof,   
   and you lack the mathematical foundations to be able to construct one.   
      
   >>> Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that   
   >>> can be expressed in language everything is proven or   
   >>> not an element of this body.   
      
   >> Your scheme is limited indeed, in that it is not powerful enough to   
   >> represent unprovable propositions.    
      
   > In other words "the entire body of knowledge that   
   > can be expressed in language" uses big words that   
   > you cannot understand?   
      
   > What is left out of:   
   > "the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?   
      
   Arithmetic, for a start.  If that allegedly "entire body of knowledge"   
   was capable of doing arithmetic, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would   
   apply to it.  That is a proof by contradiction that such a body of   
   knowledge cannot exist.   
      
   [ .... ]   
      
   > --    
   > 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.   
      
   --    
   Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)