[ ... ]
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 Gödel'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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, 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 Gödel'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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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.
Gödel, 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 Gödel'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.
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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.
Gödel, 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>
Gödel 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 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel 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 Gödel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gödel 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 … (Gödel 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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
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,
Gödel, 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 Gödel and proved it by their comments.
I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.
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: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,096 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 398:57:25 |
| Calls: | 14,036 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,082 |
| D/L today: |
2,629 files (1,642M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,479,108 |