XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 4:12 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   > On 31/12/2025 23:27, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >   
   >> So, how do you think you can prove it in F?   
   >   
   > What does "F" refer to?   
   >   
      
   F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F(⌜G_F⌝)   
   F proves that: G_F is equivalent to G_F is not provable in F   
   https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom   
      
   ∃G ∈ WFF(F) (G ↔ (F ⊬ G))   
   There exists a G in F that is logically   
   equivalent to its own unprovability in F   
      
   ∃G ∈ WFF(F) (G := (F ⊬ G))   
   There exists a G in F that asserts its own unprovability in F   
      
   The proof of G in F would seem to require a sequence   
   of inference steps in F that prove that they themselves   
   do not exist.   
      
      
   --   
   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)