XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/6/2025 2:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   I just made the system have a large enough scope   
   such that unprovable in the system means not a member   
   of the body of general knowledge.   
      
   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398375553_Halting_Probl   
   m_Proof_Counter-Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox   
      
   I refute the halting problem then I refute Gödel's   
   1931 Incompleteness.   
      
   --   
   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)