XPost: comp.theory, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 12/6/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.31:
>> 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.
>
> Therefore it is not correct to say that all claims decucible from
> general knowledge
I never said that they were.
> are in general knoledge. The claims that are
> deducible from general knoledge but neither known to be deducible from
> the common knowledge nor ottherwise knwon are not in general knowledge.
> This is an incompleteness in general knowledge.
>
Claims that can be deduced from published knowledge
can be construed to be the body of general knowledge.
--
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)
|
