XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/31/2025 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/31/25 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/31/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/31/25 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So, how do you think you can prove it in F?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.   
   >>>>>> Any such proof would be self-refuting.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> THe statement G exist, and it is True.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >>>> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >>>   
   >>> You keep on repeating that, but show you don't know what it means,   
   >>> proving your stupidity.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It can only mean one thing when taken 100% literally.   
   >   
   > The problem is language is not to be taken "100% literally", and thus   
   > you just show you don't understand how words have meaning.   
   >   
      
   Formal mathematical specifications are taken literally or incorrectly.   
      
   a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.   
   G says that itself is unprovable   
      
   G says that itself has no sequence of inference   
   steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
      
   "a proposition which asserts its own unprovability."   
   says nothing at all about any meta-system.   
      
   >>   
   >> a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.   
   >> G says that itself is unprovable   
   >>   
   >> G says that itself has no sequence of inference   
   >> steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
   >>   
   >> It say nothing at all about any meta-system.   
   >>   
   > Sure it does, as it is in the section talking about an analysis in the   
   > meta-syste   
   >   
   > I guess you are just proving you are a total idiot with no understanding   
   > of the structure of language, which is why your goal of trying to base   
   > your logic on words and their meaning is so hilarious, since you neve   
   > runderstod the nature of language in the first place.   
      
      
   --   
   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)