[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>> 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 could not point out any specific error in the   
   >>> details that I specified. You can only assert mere   
   >>> baseless dogma that you believe that I am incorrect.   
   >>   
   >> The "details" you "specified" were just hand-waving nonsense, not based   
   >> on any firm logical or mathematical results.  Therefore they can be   
   >> justifiably disregarded.   
   >>   
   >   
   > *This is a new foundation for semantics*   
   > Every element of the set of general knowledge that   
   > can be expressed in symbolic language is a semantic   
   > tautology thus can be proven true entirely on the   
   > basis of relations between finite strings.   
      
   No, it is a worthless foundation, as it can't be used to expand that   
   knowledge, as you restrict the system to just what is already know.   
      
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
      
   Your problem is you have never-learned but used by rote statements.   
      
   Your second statement is just a lie, as you claim many things that are   
   just not true in the actual system you claim to be in.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
      
   Double-Talk.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)