Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #134673

Re: Gödel's G := (F ⊬ G) specifies a cycle in the directed graph of its evaluation sequence

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 2025-11-01 08:54 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10e53e1$1a4tm$3@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (25 earlier) <10dvfuh$3k44f$1@dont-email.me> <10dvnms$3mitu$2@dont-email.me> <10e25np$e27l$1@dont-email.me> <10e29hu$fab7$2@dont-email.me> <10e4j9e$1552i$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/1/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-10-31 12:20:13 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Nice to see that you still don't disagree with my comment about the
> complexity of Gödel's sentence.
> 

Yet I absolutely do disagree.

*Gödel already said that it is equivalent*

...there is also a close relationship with the “liar” antinomy,14 ...

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar 
undecidability proof...

...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own 
unprovability. 15 ...
(Gödel 1931:40-41)

Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And 
Related Systems

-- 
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

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