*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Nothing can prove that itself does not exist.
Any such proof would be self-refuting.
G||del, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference
steps IN F that prove the statement G.
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with
additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference
steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
When we examine what this semantically entails:
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with
additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference
steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in the
meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no
number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship.
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with
additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference
steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in the
meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no
number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship.
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with
additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of inference >>>>> steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in the
meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no
number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship.
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of
context and understand what they mean.
I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to understand
the basics of communication, or sematics.
On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F with >>>>>> additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of
inference steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in the
meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no
number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship. >>>>
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of
context and understand what they mean.
You don't understand that it still
retains the compositional meaning
of the meaning of its words.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to
understand the basics of communication, or sematics.
On 1/1/26 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F
with additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of
inference steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in
the meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that no >>>>> number g exist that meets the requirements of that given relationship. >>>>>
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of
context and understand what they mean.
You don't understand that it still
retains the compositional meaning
of the meaning of its words.
An the meaning of the words are based on the context.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Right, The assertion is in M
The unprovability is in F
Noting inconsistant with that, as M is more powerful than F
Your stupidity is amazing.
You really have burnt out your brain by your self-brainwashing.
I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to
understand the basics of communication, or sematics.
On 1/1/2026 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F >>>>>>>> with additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of >>>>>>>> inference steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in
the meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that
no number g exist that meets the requirements of that given
relationship.
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of
context and understand what they mean.
You don't understand that it still
retains the compositional meaning
of the meaning of its words.
An the meaning of the words are based on the context.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Right, The assertion is in M
The unprovability is in F
Noting inconsistant with that, as M is more powerful than F
Your stupidity is amazing.
You really have burnt out your brain by your self-brainwashing.
In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines,
the principle of compositionality is the principle that
the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the
meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules
used to combine them. The principle is also called
Frege's principle, because Gottlob Frege is widely
credited for the first modern formulation of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
Context is an entirely different thing.
I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to
understand the basics of communication, or sematics.
On 1/1/26 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement. >>>>>>>>>
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F >>>>>>>>> with additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of >>>>>>>>> inference steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in >>>>>>> the meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that >>>>>>> no number g exist that meets the requirements of that given
relationship.
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of
context and understand what they mean.
You don't understand that it still
retains the compositional meaning
of the meaning of its words.
An the meaning of the words are based on the context.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Right, The assertion is in M
The unprovability is in F
Noting inconsistant with that, as M is more powerful than F
Your stupidity is amazing.
You really have burnt out your brain by your self-brainwashing.
In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines,
the principle of compositionality is the principle that
the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the
meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules
used to combine them. The principle is also called
Frege's principle, because Gottlob Frege is widely
credited for the first modern formulation of it.
But, the statement yo are looking at isn't a statement of mathematical riger, but a Natural Language explamation of a result.
The ACTUAL statement, mentioned prior in the discussion, does precisely
give the mathematical meaning, and then Godel, to help the reader
understand what that says, translates it to a simple Natural Language statement.
Again, your problem is you just don't understand how context works, and don't see what parts in the paper are Formal statements, and what parts
are the Natural Language explainations.
All you are doing by trying to invoke that principle is to demonstrate
you don't know what you, or it, is talking about.
For instance, the word "proposition" in this context references the INTERPREATION of G in M, and the "unprovability" reference that property
in F. These meanings come from the CONTEXT which affect the meaning of
words of Natural Language.
Note, that his Formal Statements use mathematical notation, while this statement does not, thus is clearly a Natural Language statement to be interpreted by the "rules" of Natural Language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
Context is an entirely different thing.
I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to
understand the basics of communication, or sematics.
On 1/1/2026 4:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 12:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/1/2026 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/1/26 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
*When we analyze this one statement made in isolation*
Which is invalid, as it ignore the context of the statement. >>>>>>>>>>
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41) >>>>>>>>>>>
G asserts its own unprovability.
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
No, G asserts, by its interpretation in M, a meta-system of F >>>>>>>>>> with additional axioms, that there exist no FINITE sequence of >>>>>>>>>> inference steps IN F that prove the statement G.
That is not what G itself says. That is merely the
extra baggage of one man's way of examining G.
RIght, G itself say that there exsits no number that
The barest essence of G is:
G asserts its own unprovability.
Nope, that it the INTERPRETATION of G, which can only be seen in >>>>>>>> the meta system.
The barest essential of G is what G actually says, which is that >>>>>>>> no number g exist that meets the requirements of that given
relationship.
The barest essence of that English sentence
taken in isolation: G asserts its own unprovability.
You don't seem to understand that you can't take sentences out of >>>>>> context and understand what they mean.
You don't understand that it still
retains the compositional meaning
of the meaning of its words.
An the meaning of the words are based on the context.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability.-a rCa (G||del 1931:40-41)
Right, The assertion is in M
The unprovability is in F
Noting inconsistant with that, as M is more powerful than F
Your stupidity is amazing.
You really have burnt out your brain by your self-brainwashing.
In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines,
the principle of compositionality is the principle that
the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the
meanings of its constituent expressions and the rules
used to combine them. The principle is also called
Frege's principle, because Gottlob Frege is widely
credited for the first modern formulation of it.
But, the statement yo are looking at isn't a statement of mathematical
riger, but a Natural Language explamation of a result.
That is why I created Minimal Type Theory https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2\
G := ~Provable(G)
G asserts its own unprovability.
which semantically entails
G asserts that there are no sequence of inference
steps that prove that they themselves do not exist.
The ACTUAL statement, mentioned prior in the discussion, does
precisely give the mathematical meaning, and then Godel, to help the
reader understand what that says, translates it to a simple Natural
Language statement.
Again, your problem is you just don't understand how context works,
and don't see what parts in the paper are Formal statements, and what
parts are the Natural Language explainations.
All you are doing by trying to invoke that principle is to demonstrate
you don't know what you, or it, is talking about.
For instance, the word "proposition" in this context references the
INTERPREATION of G in M, and the "unprovability" reference that
property in F. These meanings come from the CONTEXT which affect the
meaning of words of Natural Language.
Note, that his Formal Statements use mathematical notation, while this
statement does not, thus is clearly a Natural Language statement to be
interpreted by the "rules" of Natural Language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
Context is an entirely different thing.
I guess you are just proving that you are just too stupid to
understand the basics of communication, or sematics.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:26:40 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |