XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/1/2026 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/1/26 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > In other words, you just lie and are stupid.   
   >   
   > The "interpreation" mentioned IS EXACTLY what is specified, but you are   
   > just too stupid to understand,   
   >   
   >>   
   >> a proposition which asserts its own unprovability   
   >>   
   >> Does not mean a box of chocolates crushed on the floor.   
   >> It only means exactly one thing.   
   >   
   > Right, but neither does it mean, in its context. what you try to make it.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> And thus each word need to include its context.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Linguistic Semantics is required to exclude context   
   >   
   > Nope, as context affect the semantics of a word.   
   >   
   > Yes, sometimes "Semantics" is used to talk about giving the full list of   
   > possible meanings, but if you are using it that way, then you need to   
   > list not just one meaning, but all the possible means in all possible   
   > contexts.   
   >   
   >> Context is only included in linguistic pragmatics.   
   >   
   > Nope. Not unless you are meaning "Semantics" to give the list of   
   > possible meaning and pragmatics to determine which one.   
   >   
      
   Compositionality is a concept in the philosophy of   
   language. A symbolic system is compositional if the   
   meaning of every complex expression E in that system   
   depends on, and depends only on, (i) E’s syntactic   
   structure and (ii) the meanings of E’s simple parts.   
      
   If a language is compositional, then the meaning of   
   a sentence S in that language cannot depend directly   
   on the context that sentence is used in or the intentions   
   of the speaker who uses it.   
      
   https://iep.utm.edu/compositionality-in-language/   
   > In which case, you can't use just "Semantics" as you base, as you thus   
   > admit you don't actually know what the sentence means, just the wide   
   > assortment of possible meanings.   
   >   
   >> Your lack of knowledge never has been my mistake.   
   >   
   > No, your stupidity is yours.   
   >   
   > It seems you just don't know the actual meaning of what you are talking   
   > about as you start from an incomplete semantics and forget to apply   
   > pragmatics to it.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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)