Re: A new category of thought

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
Subject	Re: A new category of thought
Date	2025-12-07 08:59 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<10h44ns$3gl41$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <10gu68i$15ok0$1@dont-email.me> <10gv20f$1iduf$2@dont-email.me> <10h0q1c$28ekd$1@dont-email.me> <10h179h$2d17n$4@dont-email.me> <10h3lh6$3ci3p$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/7/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 6.12.2025 klo 14.24:
>> On 12/6/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 5.12.2025 klo 18.41:
>>>> On 12/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 3.12.2025 klo 17.59:
>>>>>> On 12/3/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.00:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2025 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 19.15:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 23.59:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With a reasonable type system that is a type error:
>>>>>>>>>>> - the symbol ⊬ requires a sentence on the right side
>>>>>>>>>>> - the value of the ⊬ operation is a truth value
>>>>>>>>>>> - the symbol := requires the same type on both sides
>>>>>>>>>>> - thus G must be both a sentence and a truth value
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But G cannot be both. A sentence has a truth value but it 
>>>>>>>>>>> isn't one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> % This sentence cannot be proven in F
>>>>>>>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
>>>>>>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)).
>>>>>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is an expression of language having no truth value
>>>>>>>>>> because it is not a logic sentence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_(mathematical_logic)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is the exxential difference between the two G's.
>>>>>>>>> The expession F ⊬ G has a truth value because it is either
>>>>>>>>> true or false 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose that is a false assumption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to propose anygthng like that you should
>>>>>>> (a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
>>>>>>> (b) why should that assumption be considered false
>>>>>>> (c) what assumption would be true or at least less obviously false
>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
>>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)).
>>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G is neither True nor False its resolution remains stuck
>>>>>> in an infinite loop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BEGIN:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
>>>>>> Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the
>>>>>> unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to
>>>>>> satisfy goals like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> equal(X, X).
>>>>>> ?- equal(foo(Y), Y).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that is, they will allow you to match a term against an 
>>>>>> uninstantiated
>>>>>> subterm of itself. In this example, foo(Y) is matched against Y,
>>>>>> which appears within it. As a result, Y will stand for foo(Y), 
>>>>>> which is
>>>>>> foo(foo(Y)) (because of what Y stands for), which is 
>>>>>> foo(foo(foo(Y))),
>>>>>> and so on. So Y ends up standing for some kind of infinite structure.
>>>>>> END:(Clocksin & Mellish 2003:254)
>>>>>
>>>>> As even (a) is not answered we must interprete the above to mean
>>>>> that you retracted your proposal.
>>>
>>>> If you understood the above you would understand
>>>> that I already answered (a) in 100% complete detail.
>>>
>>> Apparently "that" in your "I propopose that is a false assumption"
>>> refers to my "yes" response to your previous posting. But that
>>> response does not oresent any assumption.
>>>
>>> As everyone can see, you did not indentify the assumption.
>>>
>>>> The assumption that is false is that G is not
>>>> semantically incoherent.
>>>
>>> That assumption is not present in any plase that the word "that"
>>> could refer to.
>>
>> I explained all of the details of how G is
>> semantically incoherent and you understood none of it.
> 
> 
> The question (a) is still unanswered, apparently because the answer
> would reveal that your claim the equestion is about is false.
> 

(a) specify what is the assumption you want to propose as false
That Gödel 1931 Incompleteness exists as anything
besides a misconception.

I thought that when I proved that it is a misconception
that you would be able to infer the incorrect assumption
on the basis of this proof. Also if you could not infer
this then you lack the prerequisites to understand what
I am saying.

-- 
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>

Thread

A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:32 -0600
  Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 17:53 +0000
    Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:07 -0600
      Re: A new category of thought dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 13:19 -0500
        Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 16:55 +0000
          Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:04 -0600
        Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:49 +0200
          Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:26 -0600
            Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:46 -0600
              Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:52 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:21 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-12-05 19:57 -0700
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 21:18 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:01 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:40 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:47 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:16 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:04 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 09:55 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:43 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 22:16 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 21:50 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-07 05:32 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-07 15:49 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:38 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 07:32 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 07:37 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 17:55 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 17:15 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-07 21:50 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:26 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 07:40 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 12:47 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 19:18 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 19:00 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:24 -0500
                Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 20:34 -0600
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 21:57 -0500
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:16 -0600
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 22:22 -0500
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 21:50 -0600
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-08 23:20 -0500
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 22:30 -0600
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 07:42 -0500
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 10:05 -0600
                Re: Key new insight into halting undecidability Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-09 23:02 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 02:14 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 21:21 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 07:07 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:41 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-08 19:39 +0000
            Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:57 +0200
              Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:30 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:53 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:33 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:42 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 09:03 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-08 06:12 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 07:59 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 10:18 -0600
      Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 20:23 +0000
        Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:51 -0600
          Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 16:27 -0500
            Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:53 -0800
              Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:17 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:35 -0800
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 20:10 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:49 -0800
                Re: A new category of thought "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 19:50 -0800
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:59 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-01 23:11 -0500
          Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 21:39 +0000
            Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:59 -0600
              Re: A new category of thought Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 22:44 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:19 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 19:21 -0500
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:13 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 19:50 -0600
              Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 13:02 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 11:15 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 10:53 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:00 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:41 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 09:59 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 10:48 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-05 09:30 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 10:41 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 10:37 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:24 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:39 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 08:59 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-09 15:15 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 10:22 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-09 12:04 -0600
                Re: A new category of thought Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-14 13:02 +0200
                Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-02 01:39 +0000
                Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 20:01 -0600
          Re: A new category of thought Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 17:37 +0000
            Re: A new category of thought olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 13:44 -0600
  Re: A new category of thought Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:08 -0500

csiph-web