XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/6/2025 10:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 12/05/2025 05:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> Not one person can post a single date/time stamp   
   >> or Google groups link to show otherwise.   
   >>   
   >> The strongest of these fake rebuttals was:   
   >> "that is not how we memorized it".   
   >>   
   >   
   > "Overgeneralizations are generally un-sound."   
   >   
   >   
   > Now, as somebody who's interested in contrary opinions,   
   > yet not contrarians for contrarianisms sake,   
   > and somebody who's demonstrated that various widely   
   > held opinions in logical fields like logic are questionable,   
   > and both fraglich and fragwurdig (dubitable and question-raising),   
   > and indeed have some what may be "more true" implications,   
   > after something like Goedelian incompleteness some   
   > kind of super-Goedelian completeness,   
   > as somebody interested in rational contrary opinions   
   > for conscientious reasonings' sake, has that   
   > usual notions of the constructible vis-a-vis universal   
   > to be fair, are extra-ordinary.   
   >   
   > Don't get me wrong, there's the great hypocrisy of   
   > the ordinary Russell-ian retro-thesis that has readily   
   > demonstrable that adherence to it is an "inductively sound"   
   > yet "generally un-sound overgeneralization", so that   
   > there's a taint of guilt on any soi-disant logician   
   > who mistook "isolation and significance" for "completion   
   > and relevance".   
   >   
   >   
   > Or, as was written around here somewhere   
   > "hone-ey swah key maal ee ponce", yet,   
   > you know, "heal thyself".   
   >   
   >   
   > If you really want extra-Goedelian completeness then   
   > it demands a rather thorough account of theory and   
   > "the generally sound universal overgeneralization".   
   >   
   >   
      
   I have never considered any kind of overgeneralization.   
   So I need much more elaboration before I can respond.   
      
   My complete system would simply be the complete set of   
   atomic facts of the actual world and everything that   
   can be semantically entailed from them. Like Saul Kripke   
   already proved self-referential paradoxes cannot   
   be derived from such a system.   
      
   https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1358/file   
   /2019/04/Outline-of-a-Theory-of-Truth.pdf   
      
   I try to as much as possible only form conclusions on   
   the basis of semantic logical entailment from   
   self-evidently true expressions of language.   
      
   --   
   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)