XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, sci.lang   
   XPost: comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/15/2026 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > 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,   
   Proof-theoretic semantics proves that I have been   
   correct all along.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)