XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of   
   > context and understand what they mean.   
   >   
      
   You don't understand that it still   
   retains the compositional meaning   
   of the meaning of its words.   
      
   ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   asserts its own unprovability.  … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
      
   > I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to understand   
   > the basics of communication, or sematics.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)