XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/5/2025 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.18:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > General knowledge also includes that there are claims that might be   
   > deducible from published knowledge or might be not, and it is not   
   > yet known whether or how. Examples of such claims can be found in   
   > published sources.   
   >   
      
   Yes this is correct.   
      
   --   
   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)