[continued from previous message]   
      
   > Arithmetic is merely insufficiently expressive, the body of knowledge   
   > that can be expressed in language knows that.   
      
   No, the body of knowledge that can be represented as you envisage   
   wouldn't come up to the level of a stone-age person.   
      
   >> That is a proof by contradiction that such a body of   
   >> knowledge cannot exist.   
      
   > Not at all.   
      
   How can you say that?  You don't understand proof by contradiction,   
   remember?   
      
   > Arithmetic is merely insufficiently expressive.   
   > While you attempt to come up with counter-examples know   
   > that dogma does not count.   
      
   I don't know what you mean by dogma.  I'm talking about proven results   
   like 2 + 2 = 4.  You're just ignorant, because you don't have the   
   background needed to test these results, but you reject them just because   
   you don't like them.  You're an idiot, in other words.   
      
   > A counter-example would be an element of knowledge   
   > that can be expressed in language that:   
   > (a) Cannot be expressed in language.   
   > (b) Is not true. (All knowledge is true)   
      
   That would indeed be a counter example.  But given there is no suspicion   
   that such a construct of knowledge could be complete, no proof, no   
   attempt at a proof, there is nothing to give a counter example to.   
      
   > That is what I mean by counter-examples are   
   > categorically impossible   
      
   Your complete system of knowledge is categorically impossible.   
      
   > --    
   > 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)