XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/29/2025 2:23 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-29, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely   
   >>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is   
   >>>> a semantic tautology.   
   >>>   
   >>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all   
   >>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions,   
   >>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent.   
   >>   
   >> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology.   
   >> I am defining a new thing under the Sun.   
   >   
   > The existing tautology is already semantic. You have to know the   
   > semantics (the truth tables of the logical operators used in the   
   > formula, and the workings of quantifiers and whatnot) to be able to   
   > conclude whether a formula is a tautology.   
   >   
      
   Try and show how Gödel incompleteness can be   
   specified in a language that can directly encode   
   self-reference and has its own provability operator   
   without hiding the actual semantics using Gödel numbers.   
      
      
   > Pick another word. Since only dimwitted crackpots like yourself will   
   > want to discuss anything using that word, keep the syllable count low   
   > and make sure there aren't too many off-centre vowels.   
   >   
      
   Ad hominem the first choice of losers.   
      
   >> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean*   
   >   
   > Reject; call it something else.   
   >   
   >> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely   
   >> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language.   
   >   
   > You are gonna need to supply an example.   
   >   
      
   The key is that a counter-example is categorically   
   impossible.   
      
   >>> You would need to have tremendous stature in logic to   
   >>> be able to dictate a redefinition of a deeply entrenched,   
   >>> standard term.   
   >>   
   >> Or I could simply prove that I am correct on the   
   >   
   > Your intellectual track record shows that you couldn't prove correct   
   > your way out of a wet paper bag.   
   >   
      
   Ad hominem the first choice of losers.   
      
   >> basis of the meaning of my words, thus anyone   
   >> disagreeing is merely proving that they are too   
   >> full of themselves.   
   >   
   > You are already wrong. The definition of word is neither correct   
   > nor incorrect. It's just accepted or not. A bad definition ahs   
   > some issue like circularty or inconsistency, but if there is no   
   > such problem, then the rest is just a matter of convention.   
   >   
      
   There you go, you are getting it now.   
   circularity, inconsistency, and incoherence.   
      
   > I'm informing you that there is a convention already which assigns   
   > a meaning to "tautology". It is a semantic concept and therefore   
   > "semantic tautology" isn't readily distinguishable.   
   >   
      
   --   
   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)