• =?UTF-8?Q?Why_do_people_ignore_how_G=C3=B6del_simplified_his_own_pr?= =?UTF-8?Q?oof=3F?=

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,sci.lang,comp.ai.philosophy on Mon Jan 5 18:06:15 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    ...there is also a close relationship with the rCLliarrCY antinomy,14 ...
    ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
    used for a similar undecidability proof...(G||del 1931:40)

    This last sentence does mean that the liar antinomy
    can be used for for a similar undecidability proof.

    This does mean that the essence of all of his complex
    machinery can be boiled down to the Liar Paradox.

    Why is it that no one has understood this simple
    truth in more than 90 years.

    G||del, Kurt 1931.
    On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
    Principia Mathematica And Related Systems

    https://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/godel-original-english
    --
    Copyright 2026 Olcott<br><br>

    My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
    "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
    reliably computable.<br><br>

    This required establishing a new foundation<br>

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math,sci.lang,comp.ai.philosophy on Sun Jan 11 07:37:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 1/5/26 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
    ...there is also a close relationship with the rCLliarrCY antinomy,14 ... ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
    used for a similar undecidability proof...(G||del 1931:40)

    This last sentence does mean that the liar antinomy
    can be used for for a similar undecidability proof.

    This does mean that the essence of all of his complex
    machinery can be boiled down to the Liar Paradox.

    Why is it that no one has understood this simple
    truth in more than 90 years.

    G||del, Kurt 1931.
    On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
    Principia Mathematica And Related Systems

    https://jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/godel-original-english


    Your problem is that you just don't understand what he means by this.

    He did NOT just use the Liar Paradox as a premise for his proof, as you
    want to try to assert, but the FORM of the statement, with a syntactic
    change, changing assertion of truth, to assertion of provability, a
    lessor condition that breaks the contradiction but leads to only one
    logically valid conclusion.

    This comes out of your broken application of "Semantics" in that you
    ignore how context affects the meaning of words, particularly in Natural Language statements, which that piece you are quoting was.

    And YES, while "the LIAR" is the simplest form of the antinomy that he
    uses, more complicated version could also have been used.

    The liar states: This sentence is true if and only if it is not true.

    This statement is a contradiction, and its only resolution is that it is
    not a truth-bearer.

    The transformed statement is: This sentence is true if and only if it is
    not provable.

    That transformed statement is NOT a contradiction, and in addition to
    possibly not being a truth-bearer, could also be a True statement, that
    just was not provable.

    The case of not being a truth-bearer is removed, because the plain
    meaning of the statement, that there does not exist a number g that
    satisfies a particular defined relationship is a truth-bearer which
    obeys the law of the excluded-middle, as a finite number with that
    property either exists or it doesn't.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2