XPost: comp.theory, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/4/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.13:
>> On 12/3/2025 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.07:
>>>> On 12/2/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 14.19:
>>>>>> On 12/1/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 13.55:
>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
>>>>>>>>>>> be expressed in language is entirely composed of
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) A finite set of atomic facts
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Every expression of language that is semantically
>>>>>>>>>>> entailed by (1)
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
>>>>>>>>>>> of the "theory of simple types"
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>>>>>>>>>> History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>>>>>>>>>> Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded
>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>> as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
>>>>>>>>>>> and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
>>>>>>>>>>> is now a giant semantic tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not obstacles.
>>>>>>>>>> They're fundamental truths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just showed the detailed steps making both of
>>>>>>>>> them impossible in the system that I just specified.
>>>>>>>>> A counter-example is categorically impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your construction is impossible, as proven by Gödel's
>>>>>>>> Incompleteness
>>>>>>>> Theorem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't a theory that has no theorems satisfy all above stated
>>>>>>> requriements?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every element of the body of knowledge
>>>>>> is not such a formal system.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right, the body of knowledge is irrelevant here.
>>>>
>>>> If we are not talking about elements of the body
>>>> of knowledge that are missing or unknown truths
>>>> then there is no notion of actual incompleteness
>>>> that remains.
>>>
>>> The body of knowledge includes that certain quesstions have answers
>>> but doesn't include now what those answers are.
>>
>> Unknowns are outside of the body of knowledge.
>>
>>> For example, we
>>> know that North Sentinel Island is population but we don't know
>>> what language is spoken there. This and other examples show that
>>> the body of knowledge is incomplete.
>>
>> If anyone anywhere knows then it is in the body of general knowledge.
>
> It is not general knowledge as it is not known to anybody outside
> North Sentinel Island.
>
> I know the color of my bedroom wall. Is that general knowledge?
>
To simply things the body of general knowledge
can be everything written down in any published
book or published paper. Also anything that can
be deduced from these sources.
--
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)
|
