XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > But that isn't what G is in the proof, so you are just using a bad   
   > reference.   
   >   
      
   That you do not know exactly how semantics works in   
   linguistics (making sure to ignore all context) is   
   not my mistake. The reason that Ludwig Wittgenstein   
   was never understood is that none of his detractors   
   understood how language itself really works. Not   
   knowing how language really works results in   
   undetected muddled thinking.   
      
   ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
      
   G asserts its own unprovability.   
   Is what the above means semantically.   
      
   The proof of G does semantically entail a sequence   
   of inference steps that prove that they themselves   
   do not exist.   
      
   > I guess you are just showing that you think lying is correct logic.   
      
      
   --   
   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)