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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:It is not general knowledge as it is not known to anybody outside
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. >>>>
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.
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:It is not general knowledge as it is not known to anybody outside
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. >>>>>
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 156:55:24 |
| Calls: | 13,922 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
4,131 files (1,056M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,227 |