XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   On 05/12/2025 17:05, olcott wrote:   
   > On 12/5/2025 4:49 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
      
   >> No. I think I showed in one of my recent posts (using definition   
   >> extensions) that you need to formalise the mathematicians notion of   
   >> "proof /in/ [system]" vis-a-vis "let" and its stronger sibling   
   >> "suppose". That's a bigger job than you've done.   
   >>   
   >   
   > If an expression of language cannot be proven at   
   > all because it is semantically incoherent then it   
   > seems quite stupid to say that it cannot be proved   
   > in a specific formal system.   
      
   See if you find my message in your newsreader in which I describe some   
   definition extensions and systems related by them. There is critical   
   matter of the precise meaning of "prove in a system" (mathematicians)   
   and "derive of a system" (logicians). And the matter of whether your "F"   
   refers to the system of which your definition of G is an axiom, to its   
   related basic system of which your G is not, or to something else.   
      
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)