XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/1/2026 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/1/26 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> An the meaning of the words are based on the context.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >>>> asserts its own unprovability.  … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >>>   
   >>> Right, The assertion is in M   
   >>> The unprovability is in F   
   >>>   
   >>> Noting inconsistant with that, as M is more powerful than F   
   >>>   
   >>> Your stupidity is amazing.   
   >>>   
   >>> You really have burnt out your brain by your self-brainwashing.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines,   
   >> the principle of compositionality is the principle that   
   >> the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the   
   >> meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules   
   >> used to combine them. The principle is also called   
   >> Frege's principle, because Gottlob Frege is widely   
   >> credited for the first modern formulation of it.   
   >   
   > But, the statement yo are looking at isn't a statement of mathematical   
   > riger, but a Natural Language explamation of a result.   
   >   
      
   That is why I created Minimal Type Theory   
   https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2\   
   G := ~Provable(G)   
      
   G asserts its own unprovability.   
      
   which semantically entails   
      
   G asserts that there are no sequence of inference   
   steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.   
      
   > The ACTUAL statement, mentioned prior in the discussion, does precisely   
   > give the mathematical meaning, and then Godel, to help the reader   
   > understand what that says, translates it to a simple Natural Language   
   > statement.   
   >   
   > Again, your problem is you just don't understand how context works, and   
   > don't see what parts in the paper are Formal statements, and what parts   
   > are the Natural Language explainations.   
   >   
   > All you are doing by trying to invoke that principle is to demonstrate   
   > you don't know what you, or it, is talking about.   
   >   
   > For instance, the word "proposition" in this context references the   
   > INTERPREATION of G in M, and the "unprovability" reference that property   
   > in F. These meanings come from the CONTEXT which affect the meaning of   
   > words of Natural Language.   
   >   
   > Note, that his Formal Statements use mathematical notation, while this   
   > statement does not, thus is clearly a Natural Language statement to be   
   > interpreted by the "rules" of Natural Language.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality   
   >> Context is an entirely different thing.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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)