Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.ai.nat-lang, sci.lang.semantics |
| References | (19 earlier) <rdie0f$s3f$1@dont-email.me> <QuGdnZMVvcI0kmDDnZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rdklrg$jmk$1@dont-email.me> <YeydnZDC-6gNn2PDnZ2dnUU7-SvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rdl30t$a1b$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
| Date | 2020-07-02 13:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1JmdnbVIR5ces2PDnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 7/2/2020 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2020-07-02 09:51, olcott wrote: >> On 7/2/2020 8:01 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-07-01 16:35, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/1/2020 11:35 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2020-07-01 10:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/30/2020 9:54 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 2020-06-30 20:31, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>> How about the set of all formals systems? >>>>>> >>>>>> A language L on Σ is said to be recursive if there exists a >>>>>> Turing machine M that accepts L and halts on every w in Σ+. >>>>>> In other words, a language is recursive if and only if there >>>>>> exists a membership algorithm for it. (Linz 1990:288). >>>>> >>>>> Why is it that you have such a difficult time grasping that a >>>>> formal language and a formal system are not the same thing? The >>>>> above is a definition of *formal language* not *formal system*. >>>> >>>> Formal system >>>> A formal system is used for inferring theorems from axioms >>>> according to a set of rules. These rules, which are used for >>>> carrying out the inference of theorems from axioms, are the >>>> logical calculus of the formal system. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system >>>> >>>> Philosophically all formal systems decide membership in three sets >>>> based on their rules-of-inference algorithm: >>>> (1) WFF >>>> (2) Theorem >>>> (3) Logical Consequence >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. >>>>>> Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company, 288. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would formalize the general notion of a formal system as any >>>>>> recursive >>>>>> language having a membership algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> That isn't remotely a definition of 'formal system'. >>>> >>>> It is a correct philosophical generalization of the most generic >>>> property common to all formal systems. >>> >>> Stating that formal systems have some properties isn't the same as a >>> definition of a formal system. >>> >> >> The one thing that all formal systems do is decide memberships in >> sets. A formal proof to theorem consequences is merely applying an >> algorithm to decide whether or not a finite string is a member of the >> theorem set. > > Predicates decide membership in sets, but predicates are not formal > systems (though they may be parts of some). > > The ∈ operator decides membership in sets, but this operator is not a > formal system (though it may be part of some) > > A *definition* of formal system would be something that characterizes > exactly which things are formal systems and which things *are not* > formal systems. Your 'definition' fails to do this. > What-so-ever the membership algorithm decides is in the formal system is in the formal system. The simplest possible most generic notion of a A formal system could be comprised entirely of the finite string: "CATS ARE ANIMALS" thus stipulating its only WFF / Axiom / Theorem. The next increment of of additional sophistication could be a finite list of finite string: axiom / theorem / WFF. "CATS ARE ANIMALS" "DOGS ARE ANIMALS" "GRANITE IS INORGANIC" >>> Airplanes have wings. That's a true statement since having wings is a >>> property which airplanes share. It isn't, however, a definition of >>> 'airplane'. >> >> I could have said it more clearly. From my perspective this is a brand >> new idea under the sun and will thus need a little progressive >> refinement. >> >>> >>>> That you are not good at philosophy does not make me bad at logic. >>> >>> No. The fact that you are bad at logic is what makes you bad at logic. >> >> That you can't understand that formal systems are generically a type >> of membership algorithm might make you bad at philosophy, or I just >> haven't explained it well enough yet. > > You should consider the much more obvious possibility, which is that you > are simply wrong. I can't be wrong because I am correctly generalizing the commonality across formal systems. All formal systems are comprised of algorithms that decide membership in named sets. > I've never claimed expertise in philosophy, but it is very evident that > you have no such expertise. That you classify what I say as incorrect entirely on the basis that it is unconventional is itself incorrect. That I got confused of the distinction between a valid argument and a sound argument was a case where violating the conventions was an actual error on my part. > >>> >>> Remember on Jun 21 you posted the following two, contradictory >>> statements? >>> >>> (1) (All-True(Γ) ∧ False(𝒞)) ↔ ¬Valid-Argument(Γ, 𝒞) >>> (2) (¬All-True(Γ) ∧ True(𝒞)) ↔ ¬Valid-Argument(Γ, 𝒞) >>> >>> I pointed out they were contradictory. You claimed I was wrong. It >>> took five or six posts to get you to acknowledge a contradiction so >>> blatantly obvious that anyone who had attended the first few classes >>> of a freshman introduction to logic should be able to see it. >> >> > (1) (All-True(Γ) ∧ False(𝒞)) ↔ ¬Sound-Argument(Γ, 𝒞) >> > (2) (¬All-True(Γ) ∧ True(𝒞)) ↔ ¬Sound-Argument(Γ, 𝒞) >> >> Since my ultimate aim is truth I did not give provability enough >> attention. > > You miss my point. It isn't simply that you made a *very basic* mistake. > It was that even after this mistake was pointed out to you several times > failed to see the mistake. I had to actually spell things out very > explicitly before you even grasped that it was you, not I, that was > mistaken. This clearly demonstrates that you are not even remotely > competent where extremely basic logic is concerned, let alone where more > complex logic (such as that presented by Gödel) is concerned. It proves no such thing although it may seem to provide evidence of this. I made a stupid mistake this does not prove that I am stupid. When reformulating the basic foundations of logic one is bound to make a stupid mistake here and there. > >>> Just last week you made it clear that you didn't even know what the >>> definition of incompleteness was as you were defining it as 'missing >>> or having inappropriate parts'. >>> >>> So, here' a question: Given that you don't know how incompleteness is >>> defined, >> >> I have proven that I know how incompleteness is defined: The >> conventional definition of incompleteness: A theory T is incomplete if >> and only if there is some sentence φ such that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ). >> >> And an aspect of this definition entails that if a formal system can >> express self-contradictory expressions this degrees of expressiveness >> makes it meet the definition of incomplete. >> >> This proves that there are examples of "incompleteness" that have >> nothing to do with: "not having all the necessary or appropriate parts." >> thus proves that the term "incompleteness" is not apt. It might as >> well have been call the term of the art: "has a frog on its head". > > This shows that you have no grasp of how technical terminology works. > Terms are defined *within* a particular field. How they are used in > other fields is irrelevant. If you don't grasp this, getting through > life must be very confusing for you. > > Are you bothered by the fact that the term 'transmission' means entirely > different things when used by an auto-mechanic or a radio station? > > What about the fact that 'broadcast' means something entirely different > for a radio station than it does for a farmer. > > Or that 'pen' means something entirely different to a farmer than it > does to a 'writer'. > > There is absolutely no reason to believe that the logical term > 'incompleteness' has or should have any relation to the colloquial term > meaning 'not having all necessary or appropriate parts'. The actual incompleteness that is typically referred to is true and unprovable. That would be actual incompleteness. Simply calling formal system incomplete on the basis of its inbility to prove a lie is such a horrendous misnomer that it can be classfied as incorrect. > >>> and given that you are completely incapable or recognizing even the >>> most obvious contradictions in your own claims, what on earth leads >>> you to believe that you are qualified to find some 'contradiction' in >>> Gödel's work which qualified logicians have somehow managed to >>> overlook for almost a century? >> >> Pure ad homimen. > > This is not an ad hominem at all. This is a statement of fact. You have > repeatedly demonstrated that you lack even basic competency in logic. So > what makes you believe that you are capable of some breakthrough in this > field? > Since this does not address the argument itself it is a fallacy. >>>>>> Conventionally it would have >>>>>> three membership algorithms WFF(X), Valid(X) and Theorem(X). >>>>> And that isn't remotely the conventional definition. >>>> >>>> Connvetional are great for communication preexisting ideas. >>>> They are a great hindrance to deriving new ideas. >>> >>> Yes, we know. Everyone laughed at Einstein (except they didn't). >>> >>> There have been cases where people have made breakthroughs in various >>> fields by approaching problems in an unconventional one. >>> >>> One thing which all such examples share, though, is that the people >>> responsible for them were extremely well-versed in the conventional >>> notation and methods as well. You are not. >> >> Yes. The process of https://fs.blog/2018/04/first-principles/ >> requires that I do not carefully examine all of the prior work before >> I begin. I simply directly reverse engineer the correct solution >> without ever bothering to even glance at all of the myriads of >> incorrect ones. > > That webpage doesn't describe any sort of method at all. It appears to > be written by some sort of self-help or 'inspirational' guru. Not by > someone with any actual grasp of how problem solving works. You might as > well cite Eckhart Tolle for his views on logic, or L. Ron Hubbard for > his views on science. If you have zero assumptions then you necessarily have zero false assumptions this is what reasoning-from-first-principles means. I figured this out on my own before I was aware that it had a name. On the other hand if you start with all the same assumptions that everyone else uses and do not carefully independently evaluate whether or not each and every one of these assumptions is actually true, then you are locked into the same error that everyone else makes. This just means continuing down different branches of the decision tree of possible solutions again and again and only removing branches from this decision tree when they hit necessary contradictions. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/ a genius hunts widely almost blindly for a solution to a problem, exploring dead ends and backtracking repeatedly before arriving at the ideal answer. >> As I have repeated stated when truth and provability are merely >> examined within the architecture of the sound deductive inference >> model both incompleteness and undefinability utterly cease to exist. >> >> Unprovable merely means invalid argument. > > Except that it doesn't. > > Your 'sound deductive inference model' has not been coherently defined. "has not been coherently defined." less than 100 times in the last several years: ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀C ∈ WFF(F) ((F ⊢ C) ↔ True(F, C)) ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀C ∈ WFF(F) ((F ⊢ ¬C) ↔ False(F, C)) // This has only been defined very recently based on our dialogue: ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀C ∈ WFF(F) ((F ⊬ C) ↔ Invalid(F, C)) > And if you do manage to give it a coherent definition in which > "unprovable merely means invalid argument" without leading to > inconsistency, then you will have succeeded in creating a system which > has absolutely no relevance to Gödel's Theorem since his theorem is > about actual logic, not about your 'sound deductive inference model'. Gödel and Tarski simply started with definitions that turn out to be false assumptions. The inability to prove that a lie is true does not make a formal system incomplete in any sense what-so-ever. Self-contradictory sentences are essentially lies minus the intent to deceive. >>> That isn't a statement of logic, as has been repeatedly pointed out. >>> Why bother reading at all if you're not going to attempt to actually >>> process and absorb what you read? >>> >> >> As I have repeatedly point out is is a statement of logic. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols >> x := y means x is defined to be another name for y > > That this symbol exists does not make G := ( F ⊬ G) a statement of logic. > > Definitions are not statements of logic. > > A := B means that A is defined as B. > > This cannot appear in an equation. It cannot be evaluated to true or > false. IOW it is not a statement of logic. It turns out that it is the ONLY correct way to formalize the Liar Paradox and the Truth Teller Paradox. "This sentence is not true." Requires infinitely recursive self-reference. "This sentence is true." Also requires infinitely recursive self-reference. When we have actual self-reference then actual self-reference must be formalized or the formalization is incorrect. >> You remember telling me that I am wrong yet do not remember me >> correcting your mistake in telling me that I am wrong. >> >> LP := ¬True(LP) evaluates to >> ¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(¬True(...))))) >> infinite recursion. > > Which is entirely different from self-reference. The syntax of := > requires that the thing on the left be defined in terms of something > that *is already defined*. > > You seem determined to claim that := somehow allows one to express the > sort of self-reference which appears in the liar's paradox (which exists > in English, not in the formal systems which Gödel discusses). > In the same paragraph that he stated: ....15 In spite of appearances, there is nothing circular about ....such a proposition... He acknowledged that it was self-referential. ....a proposition ....begins by asserting the unprovability ....of a ... formula ....and ... subsequently ....does it emerge that this formula is ....precisely that by which the proposition was itself expressed. He uses the directly deceptive words: ....(and in some way by accident) to provide the magician's misdirection. > It does not. If it did it would provide you with a mechanism for > encoding those sentences which involve self-reference and are *not* > paradoxical. For example, "This sentence contains five words". It cannot. A sentence only has pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) if its self-reference prevents it from being resolved to a Boolean value. >> Unless it boils down to an epistemological antinomy it can't show >> incompleteness. > > Why not actually read Gödel's proof and show where *in the math* this > antinomy allegedly occurs. He already said that it occurs in his footnote 15. I have to keep repeating it again and again because you keep ignoring what he said. I repeated it again above. > >> -- "14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for >> -- a similar undecidability proof." (Gödel 1931:40) >> >> Thus refuting any one of these proofs is a valid proxy for refuting >> his proof. >> >> Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy >> considers this as a reasonable approximation of the Gödel sentence: > > Note the word 'approximation'. This is an encyclopaedia article. Its > goal is to provide a discussion of Gödel aimed at non-specialists. The > math which Raatikainen provides is *not* the math that actually appears > in Gödel's theorem. It is only a *very* loose approximation. This isn't > a criticism of Raatikainen who, presumably, does understand the actual > math. His very simplified 'proof' (which isn't really a proof) is one > aimed at those who lack the background to understand the actual proof. > It does not purport to be a perfect rendering of that proof. > > If you really want to show a flaw with Gödel, you need to look at Gödel, > not Raatikainen. Ultimately the flaw is the defintion of incompleteness that violates the formalization of the sound decuctive inference model. ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀C ∈ WFF(F) ((F ⊢ C) ↔ True(F, C)) ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀C ∈ WFF(F) ((F ⊢ ¬C) ↔ False(F, C)) ∀F ∈ Formal_Systems ∀C ∈ WFF(F) ((F ⊬ C) ↔ Invalid(F, C)) -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-26 20:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-26 20:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-26 23:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-26 22:54 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 11:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-06-27 10:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 11:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 11:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-27 11:54 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 15:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 17:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-27 17:43 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 19:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-27 20:15 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-27 22:11 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-28 16:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-06-28 14:43 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-28 16:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-28 20:18 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-28 21:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-28 21:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-28 21:59 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-29 00:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-28 23:57 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-29 13:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-29 12:33 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-29 14:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-29 13:52 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-29 15:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-29 14:14 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-29 15:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-29 15:13 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-29 17:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-29 21:21 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 01:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-30 00:24 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 16:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-30 16:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 18:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-30 18:15 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 19:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-30 19:18 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 20:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-30 20:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 21:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-06-30 20:54 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-01 11:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-01 10:35 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-01 17:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2020-07-01 22:47 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-02 07:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 10:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-02 10:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 13:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-02 13:37 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-02 08:53 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 09:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2020-07-02 15:06 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 10:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2020-07-02 22:52 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 18:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2020-07-02 23:48 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 18:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-02 19:22 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-02 22:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-02 23:13 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 00:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-02 23:43 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 12:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 12:19 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 13:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 12:33 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 13:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 13:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 13:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 13:07 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 12:56 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 14:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 13:38 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-03 15:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-03 22:54 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 08:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-04 08:12 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 10:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-04 09:31 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V20 (Text Analysis) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 14:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V20 (Text Analysis) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-04 15:17 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V20 (Text Analysis) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-04 17:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 13:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-05 16:40 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 23:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-06 00:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-06 10:15 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-06 08:33 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-06 11:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-06 11:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 22:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-06 10:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-06 13:55 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 22:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V23 (Newspeak) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 22:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-06-30 11:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V13 (Isomorphism) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-06-30 08:44 -0500
csiph-web