XPost: comp.theory   
   From: noreply@example.org   
      
   Am Mon, 29 Dec 2025 23:26:15 -0800 schrieb dart200:   
   > On 12/29/25 5:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
      
   >> I believe there is then another proof that shows that because there is   
   >> no decider that gets all inputs correctly, you can show that there must   
   >> be some program that no known to be corret partial decider gets right,   
   >> in other words, a program that we can not know its halting status, as   
   >> we can not prove it will not halt.   
   I believe not, but I would be delighted to see.   
      
   >>> actually i'm now thinking about using incompleteness against the   
   >>> halting problem   
   >> How?   
      
   >> Which is what Incompleteness is about. It says that THE SYSTEM has a   
   >> true statement that THE SYSTEM can not prove. Doesn't matter that some   
   >> meta-system can prove it.   
   >   
   > lol bruh, if there wasn't a meta system to prove it, how would godel   
   > have proven it true outside the system???   
   > at the very least godel's proof counts as a proof that exists outside   
   > the system   
      
   Gödel's proof is in the system of ZFC or whatever. It says something   
   about another formal system and its metasystem. Those may all be   
   different.   
      
   >> There is an additional proof that shows that while some of these   
   >> statements can be proved is some meta-system of the system, there will   
   >> always be some that can't be proved at any finite level of meta-system.   
   --   
   Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:   
   It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)