[continued from previous message]   
      
   > This is not referenced in the stanford.edu paper you cited,   
   > (nor would such garbage ever be).   
   >   
   >>> Diagonalization presupposes that there is a table. The table   
   >>> combines somethng from the rows and columns and only certain   
   >>> combinations are diagonal.   
   >>   
   >> It hides all the of underlying semantic details and   
   >> leaps to a conclusion.   
   >   
   > The diagonal method and its table shows what you choose to put in it;   
   > it's a tool.   
   >   
   > What you are saying is tripe, like that a hammer and nail hide the   
   > underlying semantic details of how a 2x4 ends up holding up drywall.   
   >   
   >>> "This sentence is false" just doesn't have the moving parts   
   >>> and pieces in it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Google [Olcott's Minimal Type Theory]   
   >> LP := ~True(LP) // LP says of itself that it is not true   
   >   
   > This is equivalent to the Liar Paradox, but it not expressed   
   > in the same way using a pronoun.   
   >   
   > Neither are using diagonalization. You need to identfy separate   
   > abstractions that combine together in various kinds of pairs, only a   
   > subset of which are along the diagonal trace, where the paradox happens.   
   >   
   > A hammer may drive a nail, but it's not a nail gun.   
   >   
   > Just because you have defined a Liar sentence somehow doesn't   
   > mean diagonalization was used.   
   >   
      
   All pathological self-reference is inherently   
   semantically unsound.   
      
   --   
   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)