Re: Mathematical incompleteness has always been a misconception --- Ultimate Foundation of Truth

On 3/2/2025 9:23 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/1/2025 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/1/25 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/1/2025 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/28/25 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/26/25 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/26/2025 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/26/25 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/26/2025 10:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:34:47 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 6:18 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:40:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 12:15 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:02:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/24/2025 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/24/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/23/25 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/23/25 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Sure I do.
A Systems is semantically sound if every statement that can be
proven is actually true by the systems semantics,

That is very good.
>

in other words, the system doesn't allow the proving of a false
statement.

That is not too bad yet ignores that some expressions might not
have any truth value.

Which has nothing to do with "soundness".

When any system assumes that every expression is true or false and
is capable of encoding expressions that are neither IT IS STUPIDLY
WRONG.

In honour of Gödel this is usually called "incomplete".

Where "incomplete" has always been an idiom for stupid wrong.

Your understanding of logic is incomplete.

Which is to say, stupidly wrong.
>

The screwed up notion of "incomplete" is anchored in the stupid idea
that {true in the system} is not required to be {provable in the
system}.

You are about a century behind on the foundations of mathematics.
>

Any expression of language that can only be verified as true on the
basis of other expressions of language either has a semantic connection
truthmaker to these other expressions or IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

I.e. its negation is true.
>

>
WTF is the truth value of the negation of nonsense?
The Liar Paradox has ALWAYS simply been nonsense.
>

>
But we aren't negating "nonsense", we are negating the actual valid truth value out of the Truth Primative.
>
You don't seem to understand that the DEFINITION of what a truth primative is requires that True(Nonsense) be false, not "nonsense".
>

>
  True("lkekngnkerkn") == false
False("lkekngnkerkn") == false
>

>
But ~True("lkekngnkerkn") == true.
>

>
Yes
>

so if we can define that lkekngnkerkn is ~True(lkekngnkerkn) then we have a problem.
f

>
We are not defining gibberish as anything.
Gibberish evaluates as ~True because it is gibberish.

>
But you are trying to define LP := !True(LP) as gibberish.
>

>
Prolog already knows that it <is> gibberish.

>
Because, like you, Prolog can't handle the needed logic.
>

>
It has an infinite cycle in the directed graph of its
evaluation sequence.

>
But infinite cycles are not prohibited in logic systems that support the properties of the Natural Numbers. The MUST allow them or you can't HAVE the Natural Numbers.
>

>
See Page 3 for Prolog
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/350789898_Prolog_detects_and_rejects_pathological_self_reference_in_the_Godel_sentence
>

>
Just shows your stupidity, thinking that all logic is just primitive, and not understanding what the Godel sentence actually is. Your mind seems to have blocked out the actual sentence presented earlier because you know you don't understand it, so you think it must be gibberisn, but it is you mind that is gibberish.
>
You didn't give it the ACTUAL Godel sentence, just the simplified interpretation of it. The problem is that the actual Godel sentence can't be expressed in Prolog, as it uses 2nd order logic operations, which Prolog doesn't handle.
>
Of course, since your mind can't handle them either, you can't understand that.

>
Carefully study the Clocksin and Mellish on page 3 knucklehead.
Read and reread the yellow highlighted text until you totally get it.
>

>
Right, Neither G nor ~G are provable in F.
>

>
Provable(common)
{shown to be definitely true by whatever means}
is the only relevant notion of provable.

>
And "Shown" requires finite.
>
Please show me an infinite proof.
>
Try to do it. That might be your task if Gehenna.
>

>
We could say that it is totally impossible for anyone
to touch their own head by adding the requirement
that they must touch their own head without ever
touching their own head.
>
Incompleteness(math) is this same sort of thing.
>

>
Nope, just beyond your understanding.

Incompleteness cannot possibly exist when true means
has a truth-maker and untrue means has no truth-maker
and false mean ~X has a truth-maker.

 Why should be believe what you have to say

*What I just said is a semantic tautology*
tautology, in logic, a statement so framed
that it cannot be denied without inconsistency.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
Try to use reasoning instead of mere rhetoric
otherwise you prove a lack of comprehension.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer