home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.logic      Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa      262,912 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 262,728 of 262,912   
   olcott to Richard Damon   
   Re: The Halting Problem asks for too muc   
   25 Jan 26 13:05:57   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/25/2026 12:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/25/26 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/25/2026 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 24/01/2026 16:18, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/24/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 22/01/2026 18:47, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/22/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Anyway, what can be provven that way is true aboout PA. You can deny   
   >>>>>>> the proof but you cannot perform what is meta-provably impossible.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> The meta-proof does not exist in the axioms of PA   
   >>>>>> and that is the reason why an external truth in   
   >>>>>> an external model cannot be proved internally in PA.   
   >>>>>> All of these years it was only a mere conflation   
   >>>>>> error.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is perfectly clear which is which. But every proof in PA is also   
   >>>>> a proof in Gödel's metatheory.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ∀x ∈ PA (  True(PA, x) ≡ PA ⊢  x )   
   >>>> ∀x ∈ PA ( False(PA, x) ≡ PA ⊢ ¬x )   
   >>>> ∀x ∈ PA ( ¬WellFounded(PA, x) ≡   
   >>>>           (¬True(PA, x) ∧ (¬False(PA, x)))   
   >>>   
   >>> Those sentences don't mean anything without specificantions of a   
   >>> language and a theory that gives them some meaning.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In other word you do not understand standard notational   
   >> conventions that define True for PA as provable from the   
   >> axioms of PA and False for PA as refutable from the axioms   
   >> of PA.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And you don't understand that those definitions aren't defined in a   
   > proof theoretic semantics.   
   >   
   > PA ⊢  x   
   >   
   > can't be evaluated itself in proof theoretic semantics and always get a   
   > value, as you can't PROVE that statement.   
   >   
   >   
      
   I have carefully researched Proof theoretic semantics   
   from its original papers and will be able to tutor you   
   on this basis pretty soon.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott

              My 28 year goal has been to make
       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
       reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.

              This required establishing a new foundation
              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca