XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > No, YOU don't know how semantics work, or linqustics.   
   >>   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which   
   >> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >   
   > Which is a statement in NATURAL LANGUAGE and you need to use Natural   
   > Language "rules" to interpret it.   
   >   
      
   I have taken "interpretation" as a twisted lie since   
   I was 14. Semantics of linguistics agrees.   
   It has always been the exact meanings that are specified.   
   it has never been the way that people twist this in   
   their mind.   
      
   a proposition which asserts its own unprovability   
      
   Does not mean a box of chocolates crushed on the floor.   
   It only means exactly one thing.   
      
   > And thus each word need to include its context.   
   >   
      
   Linguistic Semantics is required to exclude context.   
   Context is only included in linguistic pragmatics.   
   Your lack of knowledge never has been my mistake.   
      
   > The proposition exists in both the base system and the meta system.   
   >   
   > The assertion is just in the meta system, which understand the "hidden"   
   > meaning of the relationship that the statement is based on.   
   >   
   > The unprovabiliyt is just in the base system, which doesn't know this   
   > meaning.   
   >   
   > If you don't understand that you can't read a coded message without the   
   > code book, you are just stupid.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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 two different systems.   
   >   
   > I guuess to you cats are dog, Calulus is just 1st grade arithmatic.   
   >   
   > Of course, it seems you can't understand either due to your stupidity.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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)