XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/6/2025 7:03 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 06/12/2025 12:08, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/6/2025 2:24 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > I think you're talking about the logicians "derivable of a system" (ie,   
   > "is among the theorems of a formal system").   
   >   
      
   Semantically entailed on the basis of a complete   
   finite set of basic facts of general knowledge   
   encoded in formalized natural language.   
      
   This last part is crucial because then provable   
   means true and unprovable means not a member of   
   the body of general knowledge.   
      
   You never ever get true and unprovable.   
      
   > I think you should read my more detailed message about definition   
   > extension. I'm super sleepy so I can't make myself find the message id,   
   > maybe later.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)