[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >> I don't give a rat's ass about your narrow minded learned by rote   
   >> definitions of a proof are.   
   >   
   > Neither do I.  Not relevant, since I don't have any such learned by rote   
   > definitions of a proof.   
   >   
      
   I make sure to never have such.   
   I only know things on the basis that they are proven   
   to be inherently true.   
      
   >> The most generic form of a proof is essentially a semantic tautology.   
   >   
   > That's neither here not there, being too abstract to be of use.   
   >   
      
   It shows that natural preexisting order of all knowledge.   
      
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >> So you are trying to get away with saying that   
   >> knowledge of arithmetic cannot be expressed in language?   
   >   
   > I'm saying that any system of knowledge in which Gödel's Incompleteness   
   > Theorem doesn't apply is either inconsistent or incapable of doing   
   > arithmetic.   
   >   
      
   You are merely spouting off dogma with no understanding   
   of how I showed that this does not work.   
      
   He used Gödel numbers to hide the underlying   
   semantics in a language that could not directly   
   specify either provability or self-reference.   
      
   G says of itself that it is unprovable in F   
   G := (F ⊬ G)   
      
   >>> If that allegedly "entire body of knowledge"   
   >>> was capable of doing arithmetic, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would   
   >>> apply to it.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   Since it directly formalizes the semantics of anything   
   that anyone can possible ever say how can this be true?   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
      
   G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it cannot be proved in F   
   Gödel says the same thing so verbosely that no one has any   
   idea that it all boils down to this: G := (F ⊬ G)   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)