Re: A new category of thought

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, sci.lang
Subject	Re: A new category of thought
Date	2025-11-29 15:59 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<10gfqb6$3p2df$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <20251129094642.874@kylheku.com> <10gfcpa$3ji8m$1@dont-email.me> <20251129121613.116@kylheku.com> <10gfmc1$3nf97$1@dont-email.me> <20251129132843.374@kylheku.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/29/2025 3:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2025 2:23 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2025 11:53 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely
>>>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language is
>>>>>> a semantic tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>> A tautology is an expression of logic which is true for all
>>>>> combinations of the truth values of its variables and propositions,
>>>>> which is, of course, regardless of what they mean/represent.
>>>>
>>>> I did not say tautology. I said semantic tautology.
>>>> I am defining a new thing under the Sun.
>>>
>>> The existing tautology is already semantic. You have to know the
>>> semantics (the truth tables of the logical operators used in the
>>> formula, and the workings of quantifiers and whatnot) to be able to
>>> conclude whether a formula is a tautology.
>>>
>>
>> Try and show how Gödel incompleteness can be
>> specified in a language that can directly encode
>> self-reference and has its own provability operator
>> without hiding the actual semantics using Gödel numbers.
> 
> The numbers are essential, because Gödel Incompleteness is
> about number theory.
> 

The generalization Gödel incompleteness applies to
every formal system that has arithmetic or better.

> The Gödel Theorem involves a proof in which a certain number,
> the "Gödel number" that may be called G, is asserted to have
> a number-theoretical property.
> 

G := (F ⊬ G) // G says of itself that it is unprovable in F

> An example of a number-theoretical property is "25 is a perfect
> square". Except we need it in more formal language.
> 
> Gödel discovered that you can encode statements of number theory as
> integers, and manipulate them (e.g. do derivation) by arithmetic.
> 

That simply abstracts away the underlying semantics.
G is unprovable in F because G is semantically unsound,
We can't see that with Gödel numbers.

> Then it became obvious that whether or not a formula is a theorem
> is a property of its Gödel number: a number-theoretical property.
> 
> There are theorem-numbers and non-theorem-numbrers.
> 
> The Gödel sentence says somethng like "The Gödel number
> calculated by the expression G is not a theorem-number."
> 
> But G turns out to be the Gödel number of that very sentence
> itself.
>>
>>> Pick another word. Since only dimwitted crackpots like yourself will
>>> want to discuss anything using that word, keep the syllable count low
>>> and make sure there aren't too many off-centre vowels.
>>
>> Ad hominem the first choice of losers.
> 
> I'm not making an argument; I'm suggesting a way of choosing
> an alternative word, since "tautology" is taken.
> 
>>>> *Semantic tautology is stipulated to mean*
>>>
>>> Reject; call it something else.
>>>
>>>> Any expression of language that is proven true entirely
>>>> on the basis of its meaning expressed in language.
>>>
>>> You are gonna need to supply an example.
>>
>> The key is that a counter-example is categorically
>> impossible.
> 
> So you are saying every expression in a certain language
> is proven true, so that its syntax admits no false sentences?
> 

It syntax admits anything that any human can
say in any language comprised of symbols.

> What language is that, and what are examples? What happens
> when you try to make a false sentence?
> 

English, Second Order Predicate logic, C++...

> Is it possible to utter conjectures which later turn out false;
> and if so, then what happens?
> 

Conjectures are not elements of the body of knowledge.

>>>>> You would need to have tremendous stature in logic to
>>>>> be able to dictate a redefinition of a deeply entrenched,
>>>>> standard term.
>>>>
>>>> Or I could simply prove that I am correct on the
>>>
>>> Your intellectual track record shows that you couldn't prove correct
>>> your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>> Ad hominem the first choice of losers.
> 
> But anyway, your intellectual track record shows that you couldn't prove correct
> your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> This is entirely relevant.
> 
> You've never proven anything and never will.
> 
> That contradicts your above claim that "I could simply prove ...".
> 
> All evidence points to: no, you couldn't.
> 
>>> You are already wrong. The definition of word is neither correct
>>> nor incorrect. It's just accepted or not. A bad definition ahs
>>> some issue like circularty or inconsistency, but if there is no
>>> such problem, then the rest is just a matter of convention.
>>
>> There you go, you are getting it now.
>> circularity, inconsistency, and incoherence.
> 
> The existing definition of "tautology" doesn't have these issues.
> 
> 

It also is not rich enough to express anything
that anyone can possibly say about anything.


-- 
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.

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 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