In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that
there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be
proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an interpretation.
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that
there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be
proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that
there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be
proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that
there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be
proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
An Montague grammer is out of scope here, as we are talking FORMAL
langauges and system, not Natural Language,
Something which seems beyound your ability to understand, since you brainwashed youself to not understand the basics of this.--
On 12/29/2025 1:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that >>>>>> there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be >>>>>> proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
can be expressed as relations between finite strings.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently
expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
An Montague grammer is out of scope here, as we are talking FORMAL
langauges and system, not Natural Language,
"We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability." (G||del 1931:39-41)
By using an enormously convoluted process with
G||del numbers hiding his actual claim:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
readers are simply conned into believing that
G||del Incompleteness is coherent and true.
Something which seems beyound your ability to understand, since you
brainwashed youself to not understand the basics of this.
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that >>>>>>> there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be >>>>>>> proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
can be expressed as relations between finite strings.
Try to do that.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently
expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
An Montague grammer is out of scope here, as we are talking FORMAL
langauges and system, not Natural Language,
"We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability." (G||del 1931:39-41)
Right, it is a statement in the meta-theory, commenting on it
unprovabiilty in the base theory.
Context seems to elude you, because it requires understand.
By using an enormously convoluted process with
G||del numbers hiding his actual claim:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base
theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show it.
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base
theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base
theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a finite
sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there is an INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is not a FINITE sequence
of steps in the system to prove it.
It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO.
Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base
theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show it. >>>>
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you are
talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a finite
sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there is an
INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is not a
FINITE sequence of steps in the system to prove it.
It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO.
Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base
theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show it. >>>>>
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you are
talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but apparently
you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because you
are so stupid.
The statement, when looked at under the meaning that only exists in the meta-system, shows that in the meta-system there is a proof, a finite
series of steps, that shows that in the system, the statement in the
system does not have a proof, which is a finite series of steps IN THE SYSTEM (not the meta-system) but there is a infinite series of steps in
the system that make it true.
Thus, you show you can't tell the difference between an infinite series
of steps from a finitee series of step, thus you IQ must be 0 by that
scale.
And, you can't tell the difference between the Meta-system and the
system, which is like thinking your pet cat is a dog.
The fact you keep on repeating this, and never try to answer the error pointed out just means that you can't understand what an error is,
because to you truth, knowledge, fact, rules, don't mean anything
because you chose to make your self just stupid and ignorant.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a finite
sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there is an
INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is not a
FINITE sequence of steps in the system to prove it.
It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO.
Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms
merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation
and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools
think they both /are/ those things.
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the base >>>>>> theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps to show >>>>>> it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you
are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because you
are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
The statement, when looked at under the meaning that only exists in
the meta-system, shows that in the meta-system there is a proof, a
finite series of steps, that shows that in the system, the statement
in the system does not have a proof, which is a finite series of steps
IN THE SYSTEM (not the meta-system) but there is a infinite series of
steps in the system that make it true.
Thus, you show you can't tell the difference between an infinite
series of steps from a finitee series of step, thus you IQ must be 0
by that scale.
And, you can't tell the difference between the Meta-system and the
system, which is like thinking your pet cat is a dog.
The fact you keep on repeating this, and never try to answer the error
pointed out just means that you can't understand what an error is,
because to you truth, knowledge, fact, rules, don't mean anything
because you chose to make your self just stupid and ignorant.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a finite
sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there is an
INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is not a
FINITE sequence of steps in the system to prove it.
It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO.
Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.
On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms
merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation
and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools
think they both /are/ those things.
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the
base theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps >>>>>>> to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you
are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because you
are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about its provability in the base system.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal Systems, and their meta-systems.
The proof was NOT in the same system, but in a meta-system built from
that system.
It shows, via a finite proof in the meta-system, that there does exist a sequence of infinite length in the system to show the statement is true,
but their can not be a finite length sequence in the system.
All you are doing is proving you are to stupid to understand this, as
you don't understand that two different systems ARE different systems,
but meta-system can know details of their base system, and that there is
a difference between infinite and finite. THis shows your intelegence to
be near zero.
The statement, when looked at under the meaning that only exists in
the meta-system, shows that in the meta-system there is a proof, a
finite series of steps, that shows that in the system, the statement
in the system does not have a proof, which is a finite series of
steps IN THE SYSTEM (not the meta-system) but there is a infinite
series of steps in the system that make it true.
Thus, you show you can't tell the difference between an infinite
series of steps from a finitee series of step, thus you IQ must be 0
by that scale.
And, you can't tell the difference between the Meta-system and the
system, which is like thinking your pet cat is a dog.
The fact you keep on repeating this, and never try to answer the
error pointed out just means that you can't understand what an error
is, because to you truth, knowledge, fact, rules, don't mean anything
because you chose to make your self just stupid and ignorant.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a finite >>>>> sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there is an
INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is not a
FINITE sequence of steps in the system to prove it.
It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO. >>>>>
Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.
On 12/30/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms
merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation
and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools
think they both /are/ those things.
G := (F re4 G)
That isn't the statement of G, so you start with a lie.
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
But that statement you are trying to start with isn't a statement in F,
but an interpretation of the statement in F as understood in MF.
All you are doing is showing you stupidity of not understanding context.
And thus you show you can't understand meaning, as meaning is based on context.
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the >>>>>>>> base theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps >>>>>>>> to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you >>>>>> are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because
you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about its
provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal Systems,
and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
Sentences that are semantically incoherent are not true.
This is ignored because a meta level version of the same
sentence can be made true on the basis of this incoherence.
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
The proof was NOT in the same system, but in a meta-system built from
that system.
To hide the fact of the incoherence as was shown above.
It shows, via a finite proof in the meta-system, that there does exist
a sequence of infinite length in the system to show the statement is
true, but their can not be a finite length sequence in the system.
All you are doing is proving you are to stupid to understand this, as
The actual stupidity is how mathematicians believe that
the foundations of math are inherently infallible as if
they themselves are the actual mind of God.
you don't understand that two different systems ARE different systems,
but meta-system can know details of their base system, and that there
is a difference between infinite and finite. THis shows your
intelegence to be near zero.
The statement, when looked at under the meaning that only exists in
the meta-system, shows that in the meta-system there is a proof, a
finite series of steps, that shows that in the system, the statement
in the system does not have a proof, which is a finite series of
steps IN THE SYSTEM (not the meta-system) but there is a infinite
series of steps in the system that make it true.
Thus, you show you can't tell the difference between an infinite
series of steps from a finitee series of step, thus you IQ must be 0
by that scale.
And, you can't tell the difference between the Meta-system and the
system, which is like thinking your pet cat is a dog.
The fact you keep on repeating this, and never try to answer the
error pointed out just means that you can't understand what an error
is, because to you truth, knowledge, fact, rules, don't mean
anything because you chose to make your self just stupid and ignorant. >>>>
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
As I said, and you were too stupid to understand, there is a
finite sequence of steps in the META systen that show that there
is an INFINITE sequence of steps in the system that show there is >>>>>> not a FINITE sequence of steps in the system to prove it.
It seems to you, infinity is finite, and thus your mind is just ZERO. >>>>>>
Of course, you never let facts get in the way of your stupidity.
On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the >>>>>>>>> base theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference steps >>>>>>>>> to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what you >>>>>>> are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because
you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about its
provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal Systems,
and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk
about, so you do to soething irrelevent.
On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the >>>>>>>>>> base theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference >>>>>>>>>> steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what >>>>>>>> you are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because >>>>>> you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about its
provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal Systems,
and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk
about, so you do to soething irrelevent.
Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability
dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences
are incoherent by using the meta-level.
This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences
are not provable and not true.
The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable
and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they
are semantically incoherent.
The proper treatment is to toss these sentences out as
incoherent. The proper treatment is not to create a
meta-level that simply ignores this incoherence.
Tarski's metatheory-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Tarski's theory
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
In meta-F-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In F
This sentence cannot be proven: "This sentence cannot be proven" is true
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
On 12/30/25 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in the >>>>>>>>>>> base theory that shows that no FINITE string of inference >>>>>>>>>>> steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed".
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what >>>>>>>>> you are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, because >>>>>>> you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about
its provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal
Systems, and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk
about, so you do to soething irrelevent.
Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability
dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences
are incoherent by using the meta-level.
And what is incoherent about using a meta-level.
All a mete-level is, is to build a new Formal System, based on the base system that knows the basic properties of the base system.
For instance, the Rational Numbers can be considers a "meta" of the Integeres.
This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences
are not provable and not true.
The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable
and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they
are semantically incoherent.
No, the sentence of G was specifically constructed to have a coherent meaning in the base system, but you just are too stupid to understand that.
THe statment G, in the base system, as well as in the meta system is the claim that there exists no natural number g that satisifies a particular mathematical property expresses as a primative recursive relationship.
The mathematics of that is fully coherent in the base system, and WILL
have an answer of either yes or no, even if that system might not be
able to compute that answer.
In the meta-system, because of how the relationship was created, we see
that in adds meaning from the base system into numbers that inherently
only mean themselves. Just like we can form words with meaning from
letters that have no inherent meaning.
It seems you don't even understand how "meaning" works, so your core is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what you talk about.
The proper treatment is to toss these sentences out as
incoherent. The proper treatment is not to create a
meta-level that simply ignores this incoherence.
But they aren't.
I guess to you, mathematics is just incoherent, and logic has to be kept primative.
In other words, you are just too stupid to be in the field.
Tarski's metatheory-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Tarski's theory
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
You just don't understand what Tarski is saying, as his proof build on
the concept that Godel uses, and Tarski shows that if we assume the existance of a predicate "True" that will return True if its input
sentance is actually True, but False otherwise (either the contradiction
of the sentence is true, so it is false, or the sentence doesn't have a truth value) then by the same "math" Godel uses, we can prove that the
liar must have a truth value.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Right, so by the proof, "True" as a predicate can't exist.
In meta-F-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In F
This sentence cannot be proven: "This sentence cannot be proven" is true
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
And all you are doing is proving your ignornce of how logic works, since none of the system you are talking about can be modeled by Prolog.
Of course, YOU can't handle systems that can't be handled by Prolog as
you are just too stupid.
I will note again, the fact that you just refuse to even try to address--
any of the points, but just keep repeating your wrong opinion that it
can't be right shows that inside, you understand you have no grounds for your claims, and accept that you argument is baseless, but you still
just repeat it.
If you wanted to try to actually show an error in what I say, you would actually address my words and try to show an error, but that would
require you showing an understand of the field that you just don't have,
and would force you to reveal that you really have nothing to base your claims on.
I note that everything you say is based on your own (ignorant)
understanding of how logic works and you can't actually get to the meet
of any source to back you up.
At best, you look at minor offhand high level explainations that you mis-interprete.
On 12/30/2025 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms >>>> merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation >>>> and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools
think they both /are/ those things.
G := (F re4 G)
That isn't the statement of G, so you start with a lie.
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
(F re4 G)
"re4" means that a sequence of inference steps from
F to G do not exist.
But that statement you are trying to start with isn't a statement in F,
Since is begins with F it is in F.
That people do not usually look at this degree
of detail do not mean that I am incorrect.
but an interpretation of the statement in F as understood in MF.
All you are doing is showing you stupidity of not understanding context.
All the I am doing is looking at these things at
the deeper level beyond indoctrination. I am directly
examining the foundations of logic and math.
Everyone else takes these as "given" as if from
the mind of God.
And thus you show you can't understand meaning, as meaning is based on
context.
I understand meaning better then anyone else.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
for this entire body is one giant semantic tautology.
On 12/30/25 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The axioms >>>>> merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not negation >>>>> and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools >>>>> think they both /are/ those things.
G := (F re4 G)
That isn't the statement of G, so you start with a lie.
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
(F re4 G)
"re4" means that a sequence of inference steps from
F to G do not exist.
Right, and there is, it is just an infinite sequence of steps.
On 12/30/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in >>>>>>>>>>>> the base theory that shows that no FINITE string of
inference steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed". >>>>>>>>>>>
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what >>>>>>>>>> you are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>>
apparently you can't read.
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context,
because you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about
its provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal
Systems, and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk
about, so you do to soething irrelevent.
Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability
dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences
are incoherent by using the meta-level.
And what is incoherent about using a meta-level.
All a mete-level is, is to build a new Formal System, based on the
base system that knows the basic properties of the base system.
For instance, the Rational Numbers can be considers a "meta" of the
Integeres.
This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences
are not provable and not true.
The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable
and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they
are semantically incoherent.
No, the sentence of G was specifically constructed to have a coherent
meaning in the base system, but you just are too stupid to understand
that.
Why do you lie about this? Does lying give you cheap thrill?
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica And
Related Systems
On 12/30/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but >>>>>>>>> apparently you can't read.
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the base theory that shows that no FINITE string of >>>>>>>>>>>>> inference steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed". >>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know what >>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about and thus going into non-sense,
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>>>
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context,
because you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about >>>>>>> its provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you.
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal
Systems, and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk
about, so you do to soething irrelevent.
Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability
dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences
are incoherent by using the meta-level.
And what is incoherent about using a meta-level.
All a mete-level is, is to build a new Formal System, based on the
base system that knows the basic properties of the base system.
For instance, the Rational Numbers can be considers a "meta" of the
Integeres.
This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences
are not provable and not true.
The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable
and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they
are semantically incoherent.
No, the sentence of G was specifically constructed to have a coherent
meaning in the base system, but you just are too stupid to understand
that.
Why do you lie about this? Does lying give you cheap thrill?
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
And where does this say that is what the sentence is in the base system?
On 12/30/2025 1:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 11:49 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 04:35, olcott wrote:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
No they don't. That's an interpretation outside the system. The
axioms
merely force you to conclude that some symbol or other is not
negation
and/or another one is not a reference to the system itself when fools >>>>>> think they both /are/ those things.
G := (F re4 G)
That isn't the statement of G, so you start with a lie.
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
(F re4 G)
"re4" means that a sequence of inference steps from
F to G do not exist.
Right, and there is, it is just an infinite sequence of steps.
You are stupidly saying that something that does not exist
at all infinitely exists.
On 12/30/2025 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 8:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 12:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Yes, you have said this before, and I have explained it, but >>>>>>>>>> apparently you can't read.
On 12/29/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
There exists a sequence of inference steps from
the axioms of a formal system that prove that
they themselves do not exist.
Right, there is an INFININTE string of inference steps in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the base theory that shows that no FINITE string of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inference steps to show it.
Rene Descartes said: "I think therefore I never existed". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
There is no sequence of inference steps that
prove they themselves do not exist.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
That is all that G||del ever proved.
In other words, you are just showing that you don't know >>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about and thus going into non-sense, >>>>>>>>>>>>
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>>>>
Correctly paraphrased as:
a sequence of inference steps from axioms
that assert that they themselves do not exist.
Nope, as I have pointed out, you have missed the context, >>>>>>>>>> because you are so stupid.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
a proposition who has a meaning in the meta-system talking about >>>>>>>> its provability in the base system.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
You just ignore context as that is just to complicated for you. >>>>>>>>
I focus on the details that everyone else has been
indoctrinated to ignore.
The proof of such an propostion within the same
formal system would require a sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Which just shows you don't understand the concept of Formal
Systems, and their meta-systems.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true because the inner sentence
is semantically incoherent.
In other words, you can't talk about the sentence you want to talk >>>>>> about, so you do to soething irrelevent.
Exactly the opposite Incompleteness and Undefinability
dishonestly dodge the fact the their actual sentences
are incoherent by using the meta-level.
And what is incoherent about using a meta-level.
All a mete-level is, is to build a new Formal System, based on the
base system that knows the basic properties of the base system.
For instance, the Rational Numbers can be considers a "meta" of the
Integeres.
This meta-level is correct to state that these sentences
are not provable and not true.
The meta-level never looks at why they are unprovable
and untrue. They are unprovable and untrue BECAUSE they
are semantically incoherent.
No, the sentence of G was specifically constructed to have a
coherent meaning in the base system, but you just are too stupid to
understand that.
Why do you lie about this? Does lying give you cheap thrill?
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its
own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
And where does this say that is what the sentence is in the base system?
That <is> the summation of his whole proof dip shit.
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
On 30/12/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
You suppose that's what the symbols mean. Yet you know that supposition
is inadmissible per-Se. Cognitive dissonance in action.
You rely on the delusion that the internal sensation of defining a
symbol actually has that effect on your mindspace and also on the
continued hallucination that the symbol is then stably so defined when
you later introspect your mind-space.
On 12/30/2025 2:22 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
You suppose that's what the symbols mean. Yet you know that supposition
is inadmissible per-Se. Cognitive dissonance in action.
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
You rely on the delusion that the internal sensation of defining a
symbol actually has that effect on your mindspace and also on the
continued hallucination that the symbol is then stably so defined when
you later introspect your mind-space.
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
On 12/30/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 2:22 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
You suppose that's what the symbols mean. Yet you know that supposition
is inadmissible per-Se. Cognitive dissonance in action.
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
But it doesn't, as it is satisfiable by a statement that is true but unprovable, which just mean the statement is established true by an
infinite chain of infernce
On 30/12/2025 20:35, olcott wrote:
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
Not per-Se. Formally, it depends on the full nature of the system
they're in.
On 30/12/2025 20:59, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 2:22 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
You suppose that's what the symbols mean. Yet you know that supposition >>>> is inadmissible per-Se. Cognitive dissonance in action.
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
But it doesn't, as it is satisfiable by a statement that is true but
unprovable, which just mean the statement is established true by an
infinite chain of infernce
Are you using a finite derivation in the meta-system of the limit of a converging sequence of finite derivations of increasing length (whose terminals may or may not be the statement being proved but the limit of
whose terminals /is/)?
And thus you say the statement is true thereby exemplifying a point from which we may inductively infer a meaning for "true"? Is that "true of
the system in the meta-system" ?
On 12/30/2025 3:34 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 20:59, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 2:22 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
You suppose that's what the symbols mean. Yet you know that
supposition
is inadmissible per-Se. Cognitive dissonance in action.
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
But it doesn't, as it is satisfiable by a statement that is true but
unprovable, which just mean the statement is established true by an
infinite chain of infernce
Are you using a finite derivation in the meta-system of the limit of a
converging sequence of finite derivations of increasing length (whose
terminals may or may not be the statement being proved but the limit of
whose terminals /is/)?
And thus you say the statement is true thereby exemplifying a point from
which we may inductively infer a meaning for "true"? Is that "true of
the system in the meta-system" ?
True in the system can only really mean provable
from the axioms of this same system any other
meaning is nonsense.
On 30/12/2025 20:59, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/30/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/30/2025 2:22 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 14:32, olcott wrote:
G := (F re4 G)
a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
of F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F.
You suppose that's what the symbols mean. Yet you know that supposition >>>> is inadmissible per-Se. Cognitive dissonance in action.
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
But it doesn't, as it is satisfiable by a statement that is true but
unprovable, which just mean the statement is established true by an
infinite chain of infernce
Are you using a finite derivation in the meta-system of the limit of a converging sequence of finite derivations of increasing length (whose terminals may or may not be the statement being proved but the limit of
whose terminals /is/)?
And thus you say the statement is true thereby exemplifying a point from which we may inductively infer a meaning for "true"? Is that "true of
the system in the meta-system" ?
On 12/30/2025 3:26 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 30/12/2025 20:35, olcott wrote:
The symbols *mean* a self-contradictory expression of language
the same sort of thing as: "this sentence is not true".
Not per-Se. Formally, it depends on the full nature of the system
they're in.
Sure and we could define a "black cat" as a
{fifteen story office building eating a sandwich}
Within the pure semantics of the actual underlying
meanings any expression of language that means:
{a sequence of inference steps in F from the axioms
-aof F that assert that they themselves do not exist in F}
is semantically incoherent.
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled, leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
On 29/12/2025 19:53, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that >>>>>> there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be >>>>>> proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
Ontology suggests ways to *apply* a system. The system itself works
without additional meaning just as it does with. That's the point of
formal systems.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently
expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
additional meaning is given to an embedding or extension (which is pretty-much a special-case of embedding) of a system, not to the system itself.
In the case of G||del's preamble, he defines an extension of PM (I should suppose he was using 2nd ed. in 1931 from his untruths about PM if
applied to 1st. ed.) That extension is inconsistent (or, better, I
think, indiscriminate). his referent there for PM slides between PM and
the derived system as he writes and he gets muddled taking a half-formed conclusion about one, assuming and completing it for the other.
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled, leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong, and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled, >>> leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
He admitted this himself:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
On 29/12/2025 19:53, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that >>>>>> there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be >>>>>> proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
Ontology suggests ways to *apply* a system. The system itself works
without additional meaning just as it does with. That's the point of
formal systems.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently
expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
additional meaning is given to an embedding or extension (which is pretty-much a special-case of embedding) of a system, not to the system itself.
In the case of G||del's preamble, he defines an extension of PM (I should suppose he was using 2nd ed. in 1931 from his untruths about PM if
applied to 1st. ed.) That extension is inconsistent (or, better, I
think, indiscriminate). his referent there for PM slides between PM and
the derived system as he writes and he gets muddled taking a half-formed conclusion about one, assuming and completing it for the other.
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled, leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong, and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more
muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
He also proves there *IS* an infinite sequence of steps
He admitted this himself:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
And proofs are finite.
And that statement is made in the Meta System, and is talking about the
base system.
All you are doing is proving that you are an idiot, and maybe in your
case there isn't a difference between You and a deterministic machine,
as you are stuck in your bad programming.
It seems you hae a broken CPU.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
On 12/29/2025 2:20 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 29/12/2025 19:53, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/29/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/29/2025 1:21 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
Incompleteness is a property of a given Formal System, it says that >>>>>>> there exist a statement that is true in that system, but can not be >>>>>>> proven in that system.
What do you mean by "proven" here. Do you mean "derived" ?
I think Richard misspoke slightly. The undecidable statement is
true *in the intended interpretation* of the formal system
(In Goedel's case, the natural numbers with addition and
multiplication).
Truth "in the formal system" isn't really defined. You need an
interpretation.
Unless (as I have been saying for at least a decade)
the formal language directly encodes all of its
semantics directly in its syntax. The Montague
Grammar of natural language semantics is the best
known example of this.
But it can't, as any system that defines symbols, can have something
outside it assign additional meaning to those symbols.
Ontology suggests ways to *apply* a system. The system itself works
without additional meaning just as it does with. That's the point of
formal systems.
There may be SOME meaning within the system, but, with a sufficiently
expressive system, additional meaning can be imposed.
additional meaning is given to an embedding or extension (which is
pretty-much a special-case of embedding) of a system, not to the system
itself.
In the case of G||del's preamble, he defines an extension of PM (I should
suppose he was using 2nd ed. in 1931 from his untruths about PM if
applied to 1st. ed.) That extension is inconsistent (or, better, I
think, indiscriminate). his referent there for PM slides between PM and
the derived system as he writes and he gets muddled taking a half-formed
conclusion about one, assuming and completing it for the other.
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong, and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
He admitted this himself:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more
muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to >>>>> get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
He also proves there *IS* an infinite sequence of steps
He admitted this himself:
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition
which asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
And proofs are finite.
And that statement is made in the Meta System, and is talking about
the base system.
All you are doing is proving that you are an idiot, and maybe in your
case there isn't a difference between You and a deterministic machine,
as you are stuck in your bad programming.
It seems you hae a broken CPU.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more
muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to >>>>>> get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system proves (by
a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more >>>>>>> muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too
easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system proves
(by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more >>>>>>>> muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too >>>>>>>> easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever >>>>>>> lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system proves
(by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
Can you even put my explaination imto your own words to show that you understand it.--
The statement G, under the interpreation provided by M certainly can
prove that the system without M can't prove it.
It seems you think that X is as big as X+1
Sorry, you are just showing that you brain has self-distructed itself
and left you with no ability to reason.
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more >>>>>>>>> muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too >>>>>>>>> easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever >>>>>>>> lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system proves
(by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
If you disagree then provide a correct
proof that you yourself never existed.
If you can't see how this is impossible
you must by very dumb.
Since you have proved that you are quite
smart then any disagreement would most
likely be a lie, a mere head game.
Can you even put my explaination imto your own words to show that you
understand it.
The statement G, under the interpreation provided by M certainly can
prove that the system without M can't prove it.
It seems you think that X is as big as X+1
Sorry, you are just showing that you brain has self-distructed itself
and left you with no ability to reason.
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even >>>>>>>>>> more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too >>>>>>>>>> easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever >>>>>>>>> lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system proves >>>>> (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even >>>>>>>>>>> more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too >>>>>>>>>>> easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever >>>>>>>>>> lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system
proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even >>>>>>>>>>>> more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's >>>>>>>>>>>> too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever >>>>>>>>>>> lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del. >>>>>>>>>>>
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system
proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true. >>>>>>>
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.
THe statement G exist, and it is True.
Because it is true, and can be proven with the additional knowledge and tools-a of the meta-system, it shows that without the addtional knowledge and tools you can't make the proof.--
It seems you don't understand that the base system and the meta system
are different.
Boy, are you stupid.
On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even >>>>>>>>>>>>> more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that >>>>>>>>>>>> ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del. >>>>>>>>>>>>
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system
proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true. >>>>>>>>
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.
THe statement G exist, and it is True.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
When we name this proposition G then a proof of G
would be a sequence of inference steps that prove
that they themselves do not exist.
Anything that asserts its own non-existence
is necessarily incorrect.
Because it is true, and can be proven with the additional knowledge
and tools-a of the meta-system, it shows that without the addtional
knowledge and tools you can't make the proof.
It seems you don't understand that the base system and the meta system
are different.
Boy, are you stupid.
On 12/31/25 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system >>>>>>>>> proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true. >>>>>>>>>
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.
THe statement G exist, and it is True.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
You keep on repeating that, but show you don't know what it means,
proving your stupidity.
On 12/31/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any
sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid.
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system >>>>>>>>>> proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is true. >>>>>>>>>>
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.
THe statement G exist, and it is True.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
You keep on repeating that, but show you don't know what it means,
proving your stupidity.
It can only mean one thing when taken 100% literally.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
G says that itself is unprovable
G says that itself has no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
It say nothing at all about any meta-system.
On 12/31/25 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only person in the world that ever checked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of inference steps in F prove that they
themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid. >>>>>>>>>>>
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system >>>>>>>>>>> proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is >>>>>>>>>>> true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement.
THe statement G exist, and it is True.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
You keep on repeating that, but show you don't know what it means,
proving your stupidity.
It can only mean one thing when taken 100% literally.
The problem is language is not to be taken "100% literally", and thus
you just show you don't understand how words have meaning.
--Sure it does, as it is in the section talking about an analysis in the meta-syste
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
G says that itself is unprovable
G says that itself has no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
It say nothing at all about any meta-system.
I guess you are just proving you are a total idiot with no understanding
of the structure of language, which is why your goal of trying to base
your logic on words and their meaning is so hilarious, since you neve runderstod the nature of language in the first place.
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
On 12/31/2025 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 4:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even more muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ever
lived!
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bePeople have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
the only person in the world that ever checked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
G||del proved that there cannot possibly exist any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of inference steps in F prove that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves do not exist.
No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.
Nothing can prove that itself does not
exist because that forms proof that it
does exist, dumbo.
So you are just ignoring context because you are stupid. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The statement, with the added information of the meta-system >>>>>>>>>>>> proves (by a proof in the meta system) that the statment is >>>>>>>>>>>> true.
Something else can prove that X cannot prove that
X does not exist, AKA your meta-system.
Nothing can directly prove that itself does not
exist because this forms proof that it does exist.
Nope, got a source for that?
Why does my explanation not work?
It is not that your explanation doesn't work.
It is that it ignores the root cause of why
G is unprovable in F.
So, how do you think you can prove it in F?
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
But it isn't the PROOF that does the proving, it is the statement. >>>>>>
THe statement G exist, and it is True.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
You keep on repeating that, but show you don't know what it means,
proving your stupidity.
It can only mean one thing when taken 100% literally.
The problem is language is not to be taken "100% literally", and thus
you just show you don't understand how words have meaning.
Formal mathematical specifications are taken literally or incorrectly.
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
G says that itself is unprovable
G says that itself has no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
"a proposition which asserts its own unprovability."
says nothing at all about any meta-system.
Sure it does, as it is in the section talking about an analysis in the
a proposition which asserts its own unprovability.
G says that itself is unprovable
G says that itself has no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
It say nothing at all about any meta-system.
meta-syste
I guess you are just proving you are a total idiot with no
understanding of the structure of language, which is why your goal of
trying to base your logic on words and their meaning is so hilarious,
since you neve runderstod the nature of language in the first place.
On 31/12/2025 21:16, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more muddled, >>> leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
Have you heard about his musings on God?
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
I misremembered, it was James Meyer. He has a website on it http://www.jamesrmeyer.com . He's very angry about people telling him
he's wrong but who never checked like he did because they keep telling
him reasons it's right that he's certain are not reflected in the actual work.
On 1/1/26 5:41 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 31/12/2025 21:16, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more
muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
Have you heard about his musings on God?
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
I misremembered, it was James Meyer. He has a website on it
http://www.jamesrmeyer.com . He's very angry about people telling him
he's wrong but who never checked like he did because they keep telling
him reasons it's right that he's certain are not reflected in the actual
work.
In other words, since he doesn't understand it, it must be wrong.
Since his page begins with a rejection of the axiom of Choice, and the example he gives, it shows a limitation in his ability to understand the nature of infinite systems.--
To expect that infinite systems behave just like we see finite systems
work is a funamental error.
Yes, it seems to create paradoxes, but those paradoxes are only apparent
due to the lack of understanding about the actual nature of infinite sets.
THe statement G exist
On 01/01/2026 00:35, Richard Damon wrote:
THe statement G exist
Ah, I'm not so easily convinced
On 1/1/26 5:41 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 31/12/2025 21:16, Pierre Asselin wrote:
In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley
<tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more
muddled,
leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to
get wrong,
G||del, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever
lived!
Have you heard about his musings on God?
and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be
the only person in the world that ever checked.
People have misunderstood G||del and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on G||del.
I misremembered, it was James Meyer. He has a website on it
http://www.jamesrmeyer.com . He's very angry about people telling him
he's wrong but who never checked like he did because they keep telling
him reasons it's right that he's certain are not reflected in the actual
work.
In other words, since he doesn't understand it, it must be wrong.
Since his page begins with a rejection of the axiom of Choice,What is the axiom of choice?
example he gives,
nature of infinite systems.
To expect that infinite systems behave just like we see finite systemssets.
work is a funamental error.
Yes, it seems to create paradoxes, but those paradoxes are only apparent
due to the lack of understanding about the actual nature of infinite
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 21:16:45 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,029 |
| Posted today: | 1 |