XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> *When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*   
   >>>   
   >>> Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >>>> asserts its own unprovability.  … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> G asserts its own unprovability.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> G asserts that there are no sequence of inference   
   >>>> steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with   
   >>> additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference   
   >>> steps IN F that prove the statement G.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That is not what G itself says. That is merely the   
   >> extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.   
   >   
   > RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that   
   >   
   >>   
   >> The barest essence of G is:   
   >> G asserts its own unprovability.   
   >   
   > Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in the   
   > meta system.   
   >   
   > The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no   
   > number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship.   
   >   
      
   The barest essence of that English sentence   
   taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.   
      
   --   
   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)