XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/28/2025 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/28/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Which shows that you think logic is limited to the simple logic of Prolog.   
   >   
      
   Do you even know what a cycle in the directed graph   
   of an evaluation sequence is?   
      
   > You seemed to have just diverted from the fact you LIED about Prolog   
   > having a "provable" operator, which just shows your stupidity.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> This is the final and complete total resolution   
   >> of the Liar Paradox conclusively proving that it   
   >> was never grounded in any notion of truth.   
   >   
   > But that hasn't actually been a problem. It has been known to be a non-   
   > truth-bearer for a long time, at least in Formal Logic.   
   >   
   > They know-nothing philosophers might have been arguing about it, but   
   > thas is because there field can't actually resolve anything.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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)