From: tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk   
      
   On 20/01/2026 09:48, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 19/01/2026 17:00, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >> On 19/01/2026 08:19, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> But the syntactic incompleteness is still there. Both G and ¬G are   
   >>> well-formed formulas of Peano arithmetic but neither is provable.   
   >>> The well-formed formula G ∨ ¬G is provable, and so is G → G.   
   >>   
   >> whose "or" operator are you talking about?   
   >   
   > The symbol ∨ above is a connective of ordinary logic.   
      
   I have the impression that we use a symbol that several authors have   
   used for subtly different concepts. Can you name a defining author whose   
   definition I should find freely on The Internet as the definition that   
   you rely on?   
      
   --   
   Tristan Wibberley   
      
   The message body is Copyright (C) 2026 Tristan Wibberley except   
   citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,   
   of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it   
   verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to   
   promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation   
   of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general   
   superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train   
   any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that   
   will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)