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

Groups > comp.theory > #136759

Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++

From olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math
Subject Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++
Date 2025-11-28 17:14 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10gdabu$2segn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <10gcmj1$1avi$2@news.muc.de> <10gd1ft$2krs3$2@dont-email.me> <10gd312$2aou$1@news.muc.de> <10gd66n$2qv15$1@dont-email.me> <10gd96r$198g$1@news.muc.de>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/28/2025 4:54 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
> 
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2025 3:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/25 9:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> does the logical construction:
> 
>>>>>> "this sentence is false"
> 
>>>>>> place a hard limit on our ability to understand truth:
> 
>>>>>> yes/no???
> 
>>>>> No, not at all.  Anybody beyond early childhood will recognise it as a
>>>>> mere frivolous distraction from any seeking after the truth.
> 
>>>> so why does anyone think such a construct places a meaningful limit in a
>>>> formal system then?
> 
>>> People, in general, don't, apart from one or two exceptions.
> 
>>>> "this sentence has no proof"
> 
>>> That is a world apart from "This sentence is false.".  It's the kernel
>>> of Gödel's proof (as you know, of course).  "This sentence has no proof"
>>> turns out to be true and unprovable (for a precisely defined meaning of
>>> "unprovable").
> 
> 
>> *Within A new foundation for correct reasoning*
> 
>> (a) Every element of the body of knowledge that can
>>      be expressed in language is entirely composed of
>>    (1) A finite set of atomic facts
>>    (2) Every expression of language that is semantically
>>        entailed by (1)
>> (b) a formal language based on Rudolf Carnap Meaning
>>      Postulates combined with The Kurt Gödel definition
>>      of the "theory of simple types"
>>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_type_theory#G%C3%B6del_1944
>>      Where every semantic meaning is fully encoded syntactically
>>      as one fully integrated whole not needing model theory
> 
>> We have now totally overcome Gödel Incompleteness
>> and Tarski Undefinability for the entire body if
>> knowledge that can be expressed in language. It
>> is now a giant semantic tautology.
> 
> You can't "overcome" these theorems, since they're not obstacles.
> They're fundamental truths.
> 

I just showed the detailed steps making both of
them impossible in the system that I just specified.
A counter-example is categorically impossible.

>>>> "this program loops forever iff it's decided that it halts"
> 
>>> As you also know, this is the contradiction reached in one of the proofs
>>> of the Halting Theorem.  This is also not the same as "This sentence is
>>> false.", though it is inspired by that nonsense.
> 
> 
>> It is isomorphic.
> 
> Stop using mathematical terms you don't understand.  There is no
> isomorphism here.  Your assertion is a category error.
> 
I used that term correctly and you cannot actually
show otherwise.

>>> None of these sentences/nonsenses limit our ability to understand truth.
>>> They are part of the truth that we understand.  They delineate
>>> fundamental boundaries of what can be known and proven, in particular
>>> that truth is more subtle than provability.
> 
> 
>> That is bullshit as I have just proven.
> 
> Every time you use the word "proven" you appear to be lying.  I can't
> recall any occurrence where you were telling the truth.
> 

When a counter-example to my claim is categorically
impossible then I have proven this claim even if
you fail to understand that this is the generic
way that all actual proof really works.

>> Within the giant semantic tautology of knowledge that
>> can be expressed in language everything is proven or
>> not an element of this body.
> 
> Your scheme is limited indeed, in that it is not powerful enough to
> represent unprovable propositions. 

In other words "the entire body of knowledge that
can be expressed in language" uses big words that
you cannot understand?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

What is left out of:
"the entire body of knowledge that can be expressed in language" ?

>  I (along with the vast majority of
> mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, ....) do not accept such
> limitations.  These limitations involve not being able to do arithmetic
> at all.
> 
>>> This opens the possibility that some mathematical conjectures may be
>>> true but unprovable.  That's just part of existence.
> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
>>>> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
> 
>>>> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
> 
>>>> ~ nick
> 
>> -- 
>> 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.
> 


-- 
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.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

on deciding this sentence is false dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-27 00:53 -0800
  Re: on deciding this sentence is false Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-28 17:36 +0000
    Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:20 -0600
      Re: on deciding this sentence is false Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 13:31 -0500
      Re: on deciding this sentence is false Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:51 +0200
        Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:59 -0600
          Re: on deciding this sentence is false Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 11:42 +0200
            Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:43 -0600
    Re: on deciding this sentence is false dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-28 12:42 -0800
      Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 14:45 -0600
        Re: on deciding this sentence is false Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 16:51 -0500
        Re: on deciding this sentence is false Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 23:40 +0000
      Re: on deciding this sentence is false Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-28 21:08 +0000
        A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:03 -0600
          Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 17:33 -0500
          Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-28 22:54 +0000
            Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 17:14 -0600
              Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-29 11:55 +0000
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 09:18 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-29 20:48 +0000
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:31 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 17:04 -0500
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:31 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:19 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:56 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:07 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:17 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:13 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:29 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:18 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:03 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:31 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:39 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:53 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:08 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:56 -0600
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-14 13:05 +0200
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-12-01 13:28 +0000
                Re: A new foundation for correct reasoning +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:30 +0200
        Re: on deciding this sentence is false dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 10:48 -0800
          Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:54 -0600
          Re: on deciding this sentence is false Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-29 20:00 +0000
            Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:08 -0600
            Re: on deciding this sentence is false dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 12:43 -0800
              Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0600
              Re: on deciding this sentence is false Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-29 21:24 +0000
                Re: on deciding this sentence is false olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:46 -0600
                Re: on deciding this sentence is false Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-30 14:17 +0000
                The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 09:58 -0600
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-30 16:41 +0000
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 11:35 -0600
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 12:37 -0500
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-30 18:17 +0000
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 15:19 -0600
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-30 16:58 -0500
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-30 22:10 +0000
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 17:30 -0600
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-30 21:39 -0500
                Re: The entire body of general knowledge that can be expressed in language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-30 14:41 -0500
                Re: on deciding this sentence is false Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-30 14:37 -0500
                Re: on deciding this sentence is false dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-29 22:55 -0800
                Re: on deciding this sentence is false Dude <user2891@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-30 17:36 +0000
              Re: on deciding this sentence is false "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 15:00 -0800

csiph-web