XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/28/2025 11:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/28/25 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > But it can be a real meaning.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >   
   > Right, because in the language created, and "understood" by the meta-   
   > system, that is what that number means.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> According to Gödel this last line sums up his whole proof.   
   >> Thus the essence of his G is correctly encoded below:   
   >   
   > But, only in the meta-system, which ins't where the system is allowed to   
   > create its proof.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you just don't understand "Formal Logic Systems",   
   > because they have RULES which you just can't understand   
   >   
   >>   
   >> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >   
   > But there is no "provable" predicate, so your statement is just nonsense.   
   >   
   >> G = not(provable(F, G)).   
   >> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).   
   >> false.   
   >   
   > In part because it doesn't know what provable is, and just can't handle   
   > the logic.   
   >   
      
   This is merely your own utterly profound ignorance   
   of this specific topic.   
      
   ?- LP = not(true(LP)).   
   LP = not(true(LP)).   
   ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).   
   false.   
      
   This is the final and complete total resolution   
   of the Liar Paradox conclusively proving that it   
   was never grounded in any notion of truth.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Nope, as Prolog can't handle the logic of the system Godel talks about.,   
   >   
   > Your problem is YOU can't handle that logic system either, because you   
   > are just to stupid.   
   >   
   > Try to give Prolog the ACTUAL definition of G, I'm not sure it even has   
   > the ability to represent that G asserts there isn't a natural number g   
   > that meets some predicate, like x * x = -1   
   >   
   > If you can't express that part, how do you expect it to understand the   
   > full definition.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you are just to stupid to understand your logic's   
   > restrictions.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "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

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)