Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs

On 2024-11-03 13:15:30 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/3/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 11:09:06 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/2/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 11:50:24 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/1/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-31 12:19:18 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 10/31/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 12:16:02 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 10/30/2024 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-27 14:21:25 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 10/27/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-26 13:17:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

Just imagine c functions that have enough memory to compute
sums and products of ASCII strings of digits using the same
method that people do.

 Why just imagein? That is fairly easy to make. In some other lanugages
(e.g. Python, Javascript) it is alread in the library or as a built-in
feature.
 

 OK next I want to see the actual Godel numbers and the
arithmetic steps used to derive them.

 They can be found in any textbook of logic that discusses undecidability.
If you need to ask about details tell us which book you are using.
 

 Every single digit of the entire natural numbers
not any symbolic name for such a number.

 Just evaluate the expressions shown in the books.

 To me they are all nonsense gibberish.

 The books define everything needed in order to understand the encoding
rules.
 Encoding nonsense gibberish as a string of digits is trivial.
 

How one
can convert a proof about arithmetic into a
proof about provability seems to be flatly false.

 You needn't. The proof about provability is given in the books so
you needn't any comversion.
 

 So you are saying that the Gödel sentence has nothing
to do with
 BEGIN:(Gödel 1931:39-41)
   ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
   asserts its own unprovability.
END:(Gödel 1931:39-41)

 Nothing is too strong but the connection is not arithmetic.
That "asserts its own unprovability" refers to a non-arithmetic
interpretation of an arithmetic formula.

 I want to know 100% concretely exactly what this means,
no hand waving allowed.

 It means whatever Gödel wanted it to mean. As the sentence is not
a part of a proof the only clue we have is what Gödel said.

 In other words you don't really understand the proof.
You are merely trusting Gödel on faith.

I already told you that you should not use "In other words".
That you do it anyway indicates an attempt of a straw man
deception.
--
Mikko