Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #134479
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence |
| Date | 2025-10-31 07:20 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10e29hu$fab7$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (25 earlier) <10dsr8c$2r79d$1@dont-email.me> <10dtf4s$31t3j$2@dont-email.me> <10dvfuh$3k44f$1@dont-email.me> <10dvnms$3mitu$2@dont-email.me> <10e25np$e27l$1@dont-email.me> |
On 10/31/2025 6:15 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-10-30 13:03:23 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 10/30/2025 5:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-10-29 16:25:00 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 10/29/2025 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-10-28 15:12:29 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/28/2025 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-28 01:22:21 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/27/25 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-26 17:57:16 +0000, Richard Damon said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/26/25 7:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-25 19:57:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2025 6:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-24 17:37:43 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2025 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-23 15:39:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:39:31 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21 15:11:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2025 4:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20 16:24:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19 15:03:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-18 10:58:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not a sense of "proof". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the correct way to do a proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A way to do is not a sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conventional way to do proofs concludes that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within its rules if the Moon is made from green >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheese and the Moon is not made from green cheese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this proves that Donald Trump is the Lord and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> savior Jesus Christ. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the empirical falct that nobody has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified all of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. the Moon is made from green cheese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. the Moon is not made from grenn cheese >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Donald Trump is not the Lord and saviour Jesus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the same time supports the idea that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventiona wya to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do proofs is correct and trustworthy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we require that correct reasoning is only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical entailment from basic facts the Principle of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explosion ceases to exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if you exclude from "correct reasioning" some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasning that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually is correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no counter-example that can possibly exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can show there are any gaps in the body of human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that can be expressed in language that begins >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a consistent set of basic facts and only applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic logical entailment to these facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no language that begins with a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and only applies semantic logical entailment to those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts and can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express all of human knowledge without any gaps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A subset of formalized English does do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has ever presented such subset. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT rewords my words into that subset. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your words have much less material than all human >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any gaps. Therefore it is impossible to verify that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have told >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every necessary word to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Categorically exhaustive reasoning reverse-engineers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the required architecture of the system. Wittgenstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>> did this on Gödel https://www.liarparadox.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and he was so succinct eliminate the convoluted mess of Gödel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers that people mistook his succinct analysis as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not understanding what Gödel was really saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, an expectable consequence of ignoring essential >>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gödel numbers are merely the ridiculously convoluted >>>>>>>>>>>> way that Gödel added the functionality of this simple >>>>>>>>>>>> operator: ⊢ to a formal language woefully too inexpressive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Natural numbers are one of the best understood topics of >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics. >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore restricting the assumptions to natural numbers >>>>>>>>>>> provdes the >>>>>>>>>>> basis for the most interesting result. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course one can ask whether one can prove a similar theorem >>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> finite strings. It is much simpler to express claims and >>>>>>>>>>> proofs as >>>>>>>>>>> fimite strings as thats how they are usually expressed >>>>>>>>>>> anyway. But >>>>>>>>>>> that requires that one first constructs a theory of finite >>>>>>>>>>> strings. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But we can show a direct one-to-one mapping of finite strings >>>>>>>>>> in a finite alphabet to natural numbers (it just becomes the >>>>>>>>>> notational base for the numbers). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's true, and I would prefer that rather than Gödel's >>>>>>>>> mapping. But >>>>>>>>> the proof of Gödel's theorem is simpler if the number of >>>>>>>>> symbols in >>>>>>>>> the alphabet is prime even if that would mean that some of the >>>>>>>>> symbols >>>>>>>>> are unused. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Godel's Theorem doesn't need the number of symbols to be prime, >>>>>>>> it uses prime numbers to number the symbols, and prime powers >>>>>>>> for the position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And consequently Gödel's example of an undecidable formula is >>>>>>> more complex >>>>>>> than needed. Which doesn't really matter as the complex details >>>>>>> can be >>>>>>> hidden behind definitions. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts >>>>>> its own unprovability. 15 ... >>>>>> (Gödel 1931:40-41) >>>>>> >>>>>> G := (F ⊬ G) // Olcott's Minimal Type Theory >>>>>> https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2 // YACC BNF of MTT >>>>>> >>>>>> ?- G = not(provable(F, G)). >>>>>> G = not(provable(F, G)). >>>>>> >>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))). >>>>>> false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gödel, Kurt 1931. >>>>>> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And >>>>>> Related Systems >>>>> >>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>>> >>>> In other words you agree that I proved 1931 Incompleteness is >>>> incorrect. >>>> Gödel's G when boiled down to its barest essence is simply semantically >>>> unsound the same way the Liar Paradox is unsound. >>> >>> As yousually your "in other words" is a lie. Existence of a simpler >>> proof >>> does not make the original one incorrect. >> >> My words are true within your words: >> "Nice to see that you don't disagree." >> If you didn't mean that then you should not have said that. > > I did not say nor mean "you did not disagree with anything". The usual > meaning of what I said is that you don't disagree with what I said in > my previous message about the complexity of Gödel's sentence. > The complexity of Gödel's sentence is nuts. G := (F ⊬ G) Just detect the cycle in this and Gödel is refuted. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-15 11:49 +0300
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 07:21 -0500
Re: The halting problem breaks with reality --- confirmed Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-16 11:38 +0300
The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 08:57 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-16 14:07 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-17 11:32 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-17 10:06 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-18 12:30 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 05:58 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-19 11:44 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 10:03 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 12:55 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-20 11:55 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 11:24 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-21 12:31 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 10:11 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 13:38 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 22:13 +0000
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-21 20:46 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-22 12:23 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 07:39 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-23 13:02 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 10:39 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-23 11:57 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-24 10:48 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-24 12:41 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-25 14:57 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 14:53 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 13:03 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-26 13:34 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 11:24 -0700
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-24 10:46 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-24 12:37 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-25 14:59 +0300
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-25 14:57 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-25 21:27 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-26 13:44 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-26 13:57 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-27 11:45 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 08:56 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 17:15 +0000
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-27 12:22 -0500
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-27 18:54 +0000
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-27 21:26 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-28 11:54 +0200
Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 10:07 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-28 21:57 -0400
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:43 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:22 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 12:47 -0700
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:37 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 07:54 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:02 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:09 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:10 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:50 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:41 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:40 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-04 00:29 +0000
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 18:32 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 01:59 +0000
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:51 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 11:45 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-05 12:46 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 05:55 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-06 10:35 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 05:03 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:14 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 07:00 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:34 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:47 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:19 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:46 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 10:29 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-05 12:47 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-27 21:22 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-28 11:58 +0200
Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-28 21:57 -0400
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:53 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:26 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-29 21:46 -0400
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:44 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:01 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:10 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:18 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:16 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:52 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:43 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:41 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:53 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:45 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 11:25 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-30 12:50 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 08:03 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:15 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:20 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 11:18 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:54 -0500
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:45 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 17:45 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-04 11:56 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 12:05 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-05 12:49 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 05:52 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-06 10:39 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 05:08 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:21 +0200
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 07:31 -0600
Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:37 +0200
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-28 21:57 -0400
Re: The Halting Problem is Incoherent Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-29 12:56 +0200
csiph-web