Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,205 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Thought this through for 30,000 hour    |
|    28 Dec 25 07:49:08    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 12/27/2025 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       > On 12/27/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:       >> A system such all semantic meaning of the formal       >> system is directly encoded in the syntax of the       >> formal language of the formal system making       >> ∀x ∈ L (Provable(L,x) ≡ True(L,x))       >       > Which is IMPOSSIBLE, as for any sufficiently expressive system, as it       > has been shown that for a system that can express the Natural Numbers,       > we can build a measure of meaning into the elements that they did not       > originally have.       >              In other words artificially contriving a fake meaning.              ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which       asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)              According to Gödel this last line sums up his whole proof.       Thus the essence of his G is correctly encoded below:              ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).       G = not(provable(F, G)).       ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).       false.              Gödel, Kurt 1931.       On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia       Mathematica And Related Systems              The last part is what unify_with_occurs_check() actually means.       So far everyone here has been flat out stupid about that.              >>       >> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       >> is reliably computable by the above formalism.       >       > But it can only apply to limited systems, namely the systems smaller       > than the proof of incompleteness specified.       >       >>       >> I have thought this through for 30,000 hours over       >> 28 years.       >>       >>       >       > And you should have figured out its problems a lot earlier.                     --       Copyright 2025 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca