XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net   
      
   On 1/15/26 12:27 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 1/14/2026 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 1/14/26 5:11 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 1/14/2026 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> Interpreting incompleteness as a gap between mathematical truth and   
   >>>> proof depends on truth-conditional semantics; once this is replaced   
   >>>> by proof-theoretic semantics a framework not yet sufficiently   
   >>>> developed at the time of Gödel’s proof the notion of such a gap   
   >>>> becomes unfounded.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Gödel and Turing incompleteness results expose the limits of   
   >>> denotational and truth-conditional semantics, not limits of proof or   
   >>> computation per se. When meaning is grounded operationally or proof-   
   >>> theoretically, the problematic self-referential constructions are   
   >>> rejected as semantically unfounded rather than treated as determinate   
   >>> but unknowable facts.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The problem is that "Computation" relys on truth-conditional   
   >> semantics, as the behavior of a program *IS* what it actually does,   
   >> not what you can generically prove about it.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Proof in terms of the behavior of DD simulated by HHH.   
      
   Since your HHH doesn't correctly simulate DD, your "proof" is invalid.   
      
   Remember, DD is built on a SPEWCIFIC HHH, so you can't touch the code of   
   what is actually called HHH once you define it.   
      
   In other words, your arguement is just an admission of stupid lying.   
      
   >   
   >> I guess you are giving up on your idea of making "Truth Compuational",   
   >> as by your logic you can't imbue meaning to things, and thus you can't   
   >> actually write even a proof checker for a system, let alone a truth   
   >> checker.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)