XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley   
   >>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [ ... ]   
   >>>>>>>> Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more   
   >>>>>>>> muddled,   
   >>>>>>>> leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too   
   >>>>>>>> easy to   
   >>>>>>>> get wrong,   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Gödel, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever   
   >>>>>>> lived!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be   
   >>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> People have misunderstood Gödel and proved it by their comments.   
   >>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Gödel proved that there cannot possibly exist any   
   >>>>>> sequence of inference steps in F prove that they   
   >>>>>> themselves do not exist.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nothing can prove that itself does not   
   >>>> exist because that forms proof that it   
   >>>> does exist, dumbo.   
   >>>   
   >>> So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.   
   >>>   
   >>> The statement, with the added information of the meta-system proves   
   >>> (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Something else can prove that X cannot prove that   
   >> X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.   
   >>   
   >> Nothing can directly prove that itself does not   
   >> exist because this forms proof that it does exist.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Nope, got a source for that?   
   >   
   > Why does my explanation not work?   
   >   
      
   It is not that your explanation doesn't work.   
   It is that it ignores the root cause of why   
   G is unprovable in F.   
      
   If you disagree then provide a correct   
   proof that you yourself never existed.   
      
   If you can't see how this is impossible   
   you must by very dumb.   
      
   Since you have proved that you are quite   
   smart then any disagreement would most   
   likely be a lie, a mere head game.   
      
   > Can you even put my explaination imto your own words to show that you   
   > understand it.   
   >   
   > The statement G, under the interpreation provided by M certainly can   
   > prove that the system without M can't prove it.   
   >   
   > It seems you think that X is as big as X+1   
   >   
   > Sorry, you are just showing that you brain has self-distructed itself   
   > and left you with no ability to reason.   
      
      
   --   
   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)