From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 11/28/25 9:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all. Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a
mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

so why does anyone think such a construct places a meaningful limit in a
formal system then?

People, in general, don't, apart from one or two exceptions.

"this sentence has no proof"

That is a world apart from "This sentence is false.". It's the kernel
of Gödel's proof (as you know, of course). "This sentence has no proof" turns out to be true and unprovable (for a precisely defined meaning of "unprovable").

*Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*

(a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
be expressed in language is entirely composed of
(1) A finite set of atomic facts
(2) Every expression of language that is semantically
entailed by (1)
(b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
of the "theory of simple types"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically
as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory

We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
is now a giant semantic tautology.

"this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"

As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs
of the Halting Theorem. This is also not the same as "This sentence is false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.

It is isomorphic.

None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth.
They are part of the truth that we understand. They delineate
fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular
that truth is more subtle than provability.

That is bullshit as I have just proven.
Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that
can be expressed in language everything is proven or
not an element of this body.

This opens the possibility that some mathematical conjectures may be
true but unprovable. That's just part of existence.

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/28/25 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 11/28/25 9:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a >>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

so why does anyone think such a construct places a meaningful limit in a >>> formal system then?

People, in general, don't, apart from one or two exceptions.

"this sentence has no proof"

That is a world apart from "This sentence is false.".  It's the kernel
of Gödel's proof (as you know, of course).  "This sentence has no proof" >> turns out to be true and unprovable (for a precisely defined meaning of
"unprovable").

*Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*

(a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
    be expressed in language is entirely composed of
  (1) A finite set of atomic facts
  (2) Every expression of language that is semantically
      entailed by (1)
(b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
    Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
    of the "theory of simple types"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
    Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically
    as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory

So, your system just can't express statements you don't yet know the
answer too?

We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
is now a giant semantic tautology.

Only because you can't ask questions you don't yet know the answer to.

Note, a system that can only talk about knowledge, doesn't need
"proofs", as anything it can talk about is already established as true.

Incompleteness is about statements that are factually true, even if
unknown, and the ability to prove them to make them known.

Incompleteness says there are things that are True, but which can't
become Known, because we can't prove them with a finite proof.

"this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"

As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs
of the Halting Theorem.  This is also not the same as "This sentence is
false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.

It is isomorphic.

None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth.
They are part of the truth that we understand.  They delineate
fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular
that truth is more subtle than provability.

That is bullshit as I have just proven.
Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that
can be expressed in language everything is proven or
not an element of this body.

But the problems you are trying to claim to be talking about are NOT
about "Knowledge", but about Truth.

Since not all truths end up being knowable, your system just fails to be
about truth.

Which means you system can't even handle a full theory about the
mathematics of the Natural Numbers, as that has been proven to be
"Incomplete"

This opens the possibility that some mathematical conjectures may be
true but unprovable.  That's just part of existence.

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 11/28/25 9:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:
"this sentence is false"
place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:
yes/no???

No, not at all. Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a >>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

so why does anyone think such a construct places a meaningful limit in a >>> formal system then?

People, in general, don't, apart from one or two exceptions.

"this sentence has no proof"

That is a world apart from "This sentence is false.". It's the kernel
of Gödel's proof (as you know, of course). "This sentence has no proof"
turns out to be true and unprovable (for a precisely defined meaning of
"unprovable").

*Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*
(a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
be expressed in language is entirely composed of
(1) A finite set of atomic facts
(2) Every expression of language that is semantically
entailed by (1)
(b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
of the "theory of simple types"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically
as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory
We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
is now a giant semantic tautology.

You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not obstacles.
They're fundamental truths.

"this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"

As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs
of the Halting Theorem. This is also not the same as "This sentence is
false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.

It is isomorphic.

Stop using mathematical terms you don't understand. There is no
isomorphism here. Your assertion is a category error.

None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth.
They are part of the truth that we understand. They delineate
fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular
that truth is more subtle than provability.

That is bullshit as I have just proven.

Every time you use the word "proven" you appear to be lying. I can't
recall any occurrence where you were telling the truth.

Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that
can be expressed in language everything is proven or
not an element of this body.

Your scheme is limited indeed, in that it is not powerful enough to
represent unprovable propositions. I (along with the vast majority of mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, ....) do not accept such
limitations. These limitations involve not being able to do arithmetic
at all.

This opens the possibility that some mathematical conjectures may be
true but unprovable. That's just part of existence.

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 11/28/25 9:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

does the logical construction:

"this sentence is false"

place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:

yes/no???

No, not at all. Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a >>>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.

so why does anyone think such a construct places a meaningful limit in a >>>> formal system then?

People, in general, don't, apart from one or two exceptions.

"this sentence has no proof"

That is a world apart from "This sentence is false.". It's the kernel
of Gödel's proof (as you know, of course). "This sentence has no proof" >>> turns out to be true and unprovable (for a precisely defined meaning of
"unprovable").

*Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*

(a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
be expressed in language is entirely composed of
(1) A finite set of atomic facts
(2) Every expression of language that is semantically
entailed by (1)
(b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
of the "theory of simple types"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically
as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory

We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
is now a giant semantic tautology.

You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not obstacles.
They're fundamental truths.

I just showed the detailed steps making both of
them impossible in the system that I just specified.
A counter-example is categorically impossible.

"this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"

As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs >>> of the Halting Theorem. This is also not the same as "This sentence is
false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.

It is isomorphic.

Stop using mathematical terms you don't understand. There is no
isomorphism here. Your assertion is a category error.

I used that term correctly and you cannot actually
show otherwise.

None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth. >>> They are part of the truth that we understand. They delineate
fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular
that truth is more subtle than provability.

That is bullshit as I have just proven.

Every time you use the word "proven" you appear to be lying. I can't
recall any occurrence where you were telling the truth.

When a counter-example to my claim is categorically
impossible then I have proven this claim even if
you fail to understand that this is the generic
way that all actual proof really works.

Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that
can be expressed in language everything is proven or
not an element of this body.

Your scheme is limited indeed, in that it is not powerful enough to
represent unprovable propositions.

In other words "the entire body of knowledge that
can be expressed in language" uses big words that
you cannot understand?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

I (along with the vast majority of
mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, ....) do not accept such limitations. These limitations involve not being able to do arithmetic
at all.

This opens the possibility that some mathematical conjectures may be
true but unprovable. That's just part of existence.

--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis

please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,

~ nick

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

[ .... ]

*Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*
(a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
be expressed in language is entirely composed of
(1) A finite set of atomic facts
(2) Every expression of language that is semantically
entailed by (1)
(b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
of the "theory of simple types"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944 >>> Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically
as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory
We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
is now a giant semantic tautology.

You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not obstacles.
They're fundamental truths.

I just showed the detailed steps making both of
them impossible in the system that I just specified.
A counter-example is categorically impossible.

Your construction is impossible, as proven by Gödel's Incompleteness
Theorem.
You didn't "show" anything. You just waved your hands and expect
everybody to accept your continually repeated falsehoods.

"this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"

As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs >>>> of the Halting Theorem. This is also not the same as "This sentence is >>>> false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.

It is isomorphic.

Stop using mathematical terms you don't understand. There is no
isomorphism here. Your assertion is a category error.

I used that term correctly and you cannot actually
show otherwise.

I suggest you look up isomorphism in Wikipedia to find out what it
actually means.

None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth. >>>> They are part of the truth that we understand. They delineate
fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular
that truth is more subtle than provability.

That is bullshit as I have just proven.

Every time you use the word "proven" you appear to be lying. I can't
recall any occurrence where you were telling the truth.

When a counter-example to my claim is categorically
impossible then I have proven this claim even if
you fail to understand that this is the generic
way that all actual proof really works.

It has nothing to do with my understanding, and a great deal to do with
your lack of it. You have not proven that a counter example to whatever
it is you're talking about is "categorically impossible". You can't,
since you lack the prerequisites to understand what constitutes a proof,
and you lack the mathematical foundations to be able to construct one.

Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that
can be expressed in language everything is proven or
not an element of this body.

Your scheme is limited indeed, in that it is not powerful enough to
represent unprovable propositions.

In other words "the entire body of knowledge that
can be expressed in language" uses big words that
you cannot understand?
What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

Arithmetic, for a start. If that allegedly "entire body of knowledge"
was capable of doing arithmetic, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would
apply to it. That is a proof by contradiction that such a body of
knowledge cannot exist.
[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/7/2025 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.53:

On 12/6/2025 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 19.31:

On 12/5/2025 3:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 4.12.2025 klo 16.18:

On 12/4/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 18.13:

On 12/3/2025 5:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.07:

On 12/2/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 14.19:

On 12/1/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote:

Alan Mackenzie kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 13.55:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[ .... ]

*Within A new foundation for correct reasoning* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       be expressed in language is entirely composed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     (1) A finite set of atomic facts
    (2) Every expression of language that is semantically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>         entailed by (1)
(b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
      of the "theory of simple types"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
      Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> syntactically
      as one fully integrated whole not needing model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory

We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now a giant semantic tautology.

You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstacles.
They're fundamental truths.

I just showed the detailed steps making both of
them impossible in the system that I just specified. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A counter-example is categorically impossible.

Your construction is impossible, as proven by Gödel's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incompleteness
Theorem.

Doesn't a theory that has no theorems satisfy all above stated >>>>>>>>>>>>> requriements?

Every element of the body of knowledge
is not such a formal system.

That's right, the body of knowledge is irrelevant here.

If we are not talking about elements of the body
of knowledge that are missing or unknown truths
then there is no notion of actual incompleteness
that remains.

The body of knowledge includes that certain quesstions have >>>>>>>>> answers
but doesn't include now what those answers are.

Unknowns are outside of the body of knowledge.

For example, we
know that North Sentinel Island is population but we don't know >>>>>>>>> what language is spoken there. This and other examples show that >>>>>>>>> the body of knowledge is incomplete.

If anyone anywhere knows then it is in the body of general
knowledge.

It is not general knowledge as it is not known to anybody outside >>>>>>> North Sentinel Island.

I know the color of my bedroom wall. Is that general knowledge?

To simply things the body of general knowledge
can be everything written down in any published
book or published paper. Also anything that can
be deduced from these sources.

General knowledge also includes that there are claims that might be
deducible from published knowledge or might be not, and it is not
yet known whether or how. Examples of such claims can be found in
published sources.

Yes this is correct.

Therefore it is not correct to say that all claims decucible from
general knowledge

I never said that they were.

Above you said that

To simply things the body of general knowledge
can be everything written down in any published
book or published paper. Also anything that can
be deduced from these sources.

As I just inferred, it is not correct to say so.

That is the same as disagreeing with arithmetic.

Expressions of language that are defined in terms
of other expressions of language can be encoded
as relations between finite strings of GUIDs.

There is no reason why relations between GUIDs
cannot encode a finite set of different kinds of
relations to other GUIDs and each GUID corresponds
to one sense meaning of one word for every sense
meaning of every word.

 are in general knoledge. The claims that are
deducible from general knoledge but neither known to be deducible from
the common knowledge nor ottherwise knwon are not in general knowledge.
This is an incompleteness in general knowledge.

Claims that can be deduced from published knowledge
can be construed to be the body of general knowledge.

And here you say it again.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2