On 11/20/2023 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2023 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2023 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2023 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2023 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>
>>>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>>>
>>>>> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
>>>>> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
>>>>> Incompleteness is x.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
>>>>> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>>
>>>>> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
>>>>> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
>>>>> wrong with them.
>>>>
>>>> I am only referring to the above Gödel quote and stipulating that
>>>> [referring to] anything else that he ever said or did is an dishonest
>>>> dodge way from the point.
>>>>
>>>> I am also only referring to the above definition of incompleteness
>>>> thus not any naive paraphrase.
>>>>
>>>> The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal
>>>> system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried
>>>> out,
>>>> there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved
>>>> nor disproved in F.
>>>>
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
>>>
>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>
>>> When we do plug "epistemological antinomy" into x we prove that
>>> the notion of mathematical incompleteness is incorrect because
>>> it determines that L is incomplete on the basis that x is self-
>>> contradictory.
>>
>> And by what justification do you plug a
>> epistemological antinomy into "x?"
>>
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> *Paraphrasing that*
>> No epistemological antinomy can be prohibited from being
>> used for a similar undecidability proof
>>
>
> It <is> the case that an epistemological antinomy inserted in
> x does cause the incompleteness criteria to determine that
> formal system L <is> incomplete even though the actual issue
> is that x is self-contradictory.
>
> The only last step of this is whether or not it is possible
> or logically impossible to define a formal system that can
> express actual epistemological antinomies in its language.
>
> Another way of saying this is whether or not it is logically
> impossible to precisely correctly formalize the Liar Paradox.
>
> If we can precisely formalize the Liar Paradox then we know
> that it is not logically impossible to formalize epistemological
> antinomies.
>

Finally a decent review that does not use dishonest dodge as the
rebuttal tactic.

"And yes, a logical system that admits self-contradictory statements
as elements of its language is incomplete, but that doesn't invaldate
the concept of Incompleteness, just shows that it may not mean a lot
in edge cases that have other problems."

It is incorrect to determine that a formal system is incomplete on the
basis of its inability to prove or refute self-contradictory statements.

Formal systems cannot be required to prove or refute self-contradictory
expressions.

We will have to get back to your other points after we finish this one.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/21/23 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2023 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2023 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2023 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2023 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2023 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>>>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
>>>>>> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
>>>>>> Incompleteness is x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
>>>>>> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
>>>>>> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
>>>>>> wrong with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am only referring to the above Gödel quote and stipulating that
>>>>> [referring to] anything else that he ever said or did is an dishonest
>>>>> dodge way from the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also only referring to the above definition of incompleteness
>>>>> thus not any naive paraphrase.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal
>>>>> system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried
>>>>> out,
>>>>> there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved
>>>>> nor disproved in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
>>>>
>>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>>
>>>> When we do plug "epistemological antinomy" into x we prove that
>>>> the notion of mathematical incompleteness is incorrect because
>>>> it determines that L is incomplete on the basis that x is self-
>>>> contradictory.
>>>
>>> And by what justification do you plug a
>>> epistemological antinomy into "x?"
>>>
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> *Paraphrasing that*
>>> No epistemological antinomy can be prohibited from being
>>> used for a similar undecidability proof
>>>
>>
>> It <is> the case that an epistemological antinomy inserted in
>> x does cause the incompleteness criteria to determine that
>> formal system L <is> incomplete even though the actual issue
>> is that x is self-contradictory.
>>
>> The only last step of this is whether or not it is possible
>> or logically impossible to define a formal system that can
>> express actual epistemological antinomies in its language.
>>
>> Another way of saying this is whether or not it is logically
>> impossible to precisely correctly formalize the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> If we can precisely formalize the Liar Paradox then we know
>> that it is not logically impossible to formalize epistemological
>> antinomies.
>>
>
> Finally a decent review that does not use dishonest dodge as the
> rebuttal tactic.
>
>    "And yes, a logical system that admits self-contradictory statements
>    as elements of its language is incomplete, but that doesn't invaldate
>    the concept of Incompleteness, just shows that it may not mean a lot
>    in edge cases that have other problems."
>
> It is incorrect to determine that a formal system is incomplete on the
> basis of its inability to prove or refute self-contradictory statements.

WhY?

What "Rule" does it break?

You may find it morally objectional (but since you appear to think Child
Porn to be acceptable, seems strange to draw a line there), but morals
are part of logic, but ethics.

Remember, we are talking about a system that accepted these
self-contradictory statements, so expecting it to actually be able to
fully handle them doesn't seem out of bounds.

Also, what is actually wrong with a system being "Incomplete". All that
does is admit that the system is limited in a certain ways. It is good
to know our limitations. Maybe that is part of your problem, you can't
let yourself look at your own limitation, so you think you know stuff
you don't, which makes you totally stupid, as the greatest wisdom is
knowing what you don't know.

>
> Formal systems cannot be required to prove or refute self-contradictory
> expressions.

Then they shouldn't admit those statement as statements they claim to be
able to handle.

Remember, the meaning of "x ∈ Language(L)" is that Language L admits the
statement x as something that it can handle.

If you claim to be able to be able to handle all languages, but actually
can only work with those in the Latin alphabet, you are incomplete in
your claim.

>
> We will have to get back to your other points after we finish this one.
>

So, you are admitting that you are falling for your own Red Herring?

Just shows your stupidity. The fact that you think you can show your
point for a marginal case that isn't actually the focus of the Theory,
doesn't mean a thing for the Theory.

Remember, one of the conditions for Godel's Incompleteness Theory is the
system must be CONSITANT. I suspect that a system that allows
self-inconsistent statements as part of its language will likely fail to
be consistent itself.

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>
> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))

Is the English translation of these symbols thus?:
There exists x in language L such that L implies x and L implies not x.?
I'm not seeing how a language implies anything until it is instantiated, so I guess I'm missing some of the connotation here.
I just want to respectfully mention too, that the persistence of Olcott on these fundamental workings is impressive.
Still, I wonder, to what degree can headway be found down there?
Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a result.
I do not recommend this to any; not even a GI: keep your power supply fully charged when possible, and be wary of depleting it too far.
As well, the whole sugar thing... seems like brain food to me.

I suppose where I have 'implies' there is a bit more going on.
I don't use those symbols, nor did the logic course that I took, as I recall.

One of the most treacherous activities is the construction of your own language L.
Upon establishing a strong and bulletproof L nobody will understand you.

Worst of all, I am afraid that GI that I mentioned is going to secure the human failing and frailty within our own genetics which beget us the impressive and unique linguistic andvancements that we egotistically claim to be complete, or presume this, anyways. It is a great step down to admit that we are all challenged. I do believe that for humans to take this step down back to the ground may be wise. Upon landing with firm footing; possibly filling a few lows to establish drainage, on a gentle pitch, we could find our way to some agreement. It will likely go like this: we now have the ability to experiment with our own genes. Rather than vilify this as is publicly done now, limited experiments initially, at great risk to the mother and father and of course the offspring, all voluntary but for the offspring, but still as a right to the parents to engage in this limited program, realizing that not just physical abilities, but mental abilities, being of great interest, yet essentially marking the wonderboy as engaged in that very L that I described. Well, others obviously have suffered the same, and they still managed to get by in the world even though their world view was unique. All should really admit this, and that our L is a filter through which we work with others. Yet internally doesn't each of us have our own L naught, say? An untouchable origin in that there is no direct translation. Heck we barely even have direct translation from Chinese to English. I know because I try to read the manuals.

>
> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
> Incompleteness is x.
>
> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>
> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
> wrong with them.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/21/2023 9:16 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>
>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>
> Is the English translation of these symbols thus?:
> There exists x in language L such that L implies x and L implies not x.?

*No that is not it*
There exists an x in the language of L such that there is no sequence
of inference steps in F that derives x and there is no sequence of
inference steps in F that derives ~x.

> I'm not seeing how a language implies anything until it is instantiated, so I guess I'm missing some of the connotation here.
> I just want to respectfully mention too, that the persistence of Olcott on these fundamental workings is impressive.
> Still, I wonder, to what degree can headway be found down there?

I have found that the incompleteness criteria incorrectly determines
that a formal system is incomplete on the basis that a self-
contradictory (thus incorrect) x proves that the formal system is
incomplete.

> Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a result.

He did not trust anyone to prepare his meals (not even himself)
besides his wife and she had to go into the hospital so he starved
himself to death.

> I do not recommend this to any; not even a GI: keep your power supply fully charged when possible, and be wary of depleting it too far.
> As well, the whole sugar thing... seems like brain food to me.
>
> I suppose where I have 'implies' there is a bit more going on.
> I don't use those symbols, nor did the logic course that I took, as I recall.
>
> One of the most treacherous activities is the construction of your own language L.

*Been there done that*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF

> Upon establishing a strong and bulletproof L nobody will understand you.
>

It is only a few augmentations to the syntax of FOL.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/20/2023 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2023 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2023 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>>
>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>
>>> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
>>> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
>>> Incompleteness is x.
>>>
>>> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
>>> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>>>
>>> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
>>> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
>>> wrong with them.
>>
>> I am only referring to the above Gödel quote and stipulating that
>> [referring to] anything else that he ever said or did is an dishonest
>> dodge way from the point.
>>
>> I am also only referring to the above definition of incompleteness
>> thus not any naive paraphrase.
>>
>> The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal
>> system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out,
>> there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved
>> nor disproved in F.
>>
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
>
> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>
> When we do plug "epistemological antinomy" into x we prove that
> the notion of mathematical incompleteness is incorrect because
> it determines that L is incomplete on the basis that x is self-
> contradictory.

"Problem, if x is an epistemological antinony, what is ¬x?"
*Was a particularly good point*

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/21/23 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2023 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2023 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2023 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>
>>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>>
>>>> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
>>>> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
>>>> Incompleteness is x.
>>>>
>>>> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
>>>> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>
>>>> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
>>>> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
>>>> wrong with them.
>>>
>>> I am only referring to the above Gödel quote and stipulating that
>>> [referring to] anything else that he ever said or did is an dishonest
>>> dodge way from the point.
>>>
>>> I am also only referring to the above definition of incompleteness
>>> thus not any naive paraphrase.
>>>
>>> The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal
>>> system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out,
>>> there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved
>>> nor disproved in F.
>>>
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
>>
>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>
>> When we do plug "epistemological antinomy" into x we prove that
>> the notion of mathematical incompleteness is incorrect because
>> it determines that L is incomplete on the basis that x is self-
>> contradictory.
>
> "Problem, if x is an epistemological antinony, what is ¬x?"
> *Was a particularly good point*
>

One reason why useful logic system exclude logical self-contradiction
from them!

Incompleteness, as a concept, is mostly useful in "binary" systems,
where logic values are True and False (as verified by the operations of
Prove or Refute). Systems that move beyond that either need a revised
definition to include other predicates (like whatever you want to call
verified to not be a truth bearer), or just accept that they are
incomplete becuase they are trying to handle things beyond what
completeness can deal with.

On 11/21/2023 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/20/2023 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2023 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2023 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>
>>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>>
>>>> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
>>>> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
>>>> Incompleteness is x.
>>>>
>>>> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
>>>> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>
>>>> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
>>>> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
>>>> wrong with them.
>>>
>>> I am only referring to the above Gödel quote and stipulating that
>>> [referring to] anything else that he ever said or did is an dishonest
>>> dodge way from the point.
>>>
>>> I am also only referring to the above definition of incompleteness
>>> thus not any naive paraphrase.
>>>
>>> The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal
>>> system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out,
>>> there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved
>>> nor disproved in F.
>>>
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
>>
>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>
>> When we do plug "epistemological antinomy" into x we prove that
>> the notion of mathematical incompleteness is incorrect because
>> it determines that L is incomplete on the basis that x is self-
>> contradictory.
>
> "Problem, if x is an epistemological antinony, what is ¬x?"
> *Was a particularly good point*
>

"One reason why useful logic system exclude logical self-contradiction
from them!"

*That is my whole point, modern logic systems do not do that*

When we take the set of all human knowledge expressed as HOL
actually incompleteness is only unknown truths yet the

incompleteness criteria incorrectly determines that these systems
are also incomplete on the basis that they cannot prove self-
contradictory expressions.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 11/21/23 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/21/2023 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2023 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2023 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2023 3:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
>>>>> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>
>>>>> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>>>
>>>>> The only possible place to insert Gödel's above reference
>>>>> to an epistemological antinomy in the above definition of
>>>>> Incompleteness is x.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Gödel's quote is saying that a formal system <is> incomplete
>>>>> when it cannot prove or refute a self-contradictory expression.
>>>>>
>>>>> He says this even though the actual reason that self-contradictory
>>>>> expressions cannot be proven or refuted is that there is something
>>>>> wrong with them.
>>>>
>>>> I am only referring to the above Gödel quote and stipulating that
>>>> [referring to] anything else that he ever said or did is an dishonest
>>>> dodge way from the point.
>>>>
>>>> I am also only referring to the above definition of incompleteness
>>>> thus not any naive paraphrase.
>>>>
>>>> The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal
>>>> system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried
>>>> out,
>>>> there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved
>>>> nor disproved in F.
>>>>
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
>>>
>>> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
>>> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
>>>
>>> When we do plug "epistemological antinomy" into x we prove that
>>> the notion of mathematical incompleteness is incorrect because
>>> it determines that L is incomplete on the basis that x is self-
>>> contradictory.
>>
>> "Problem, if x is an epistemological antinony, what is ¬x?"
>> *Was a particularly good point*
>>
>
> "One reason why useful logic system exclude logical self-contradiction
> from them!"
>
> *That is my whole point, modern logic systems do not do that*

Why do you say that?

Your epistemological antinomies are NOT elements of the language of any
useful binary logic system.

>
> When we take the set of all human knowledge expressed as HOL
> actually incompleteness is only unknown truths yet the
>
> incompleteness criteria incorrectly determines that these systems
> are also incomplete on the basis that they cannot prove self-
> contradictory expressions.
>

Except that they are not element of the Language, so they don't need to
be proven or refuted.

You don't seem to understand what Language(L) actually means, it isn't a
syntactic only constraint, but a semantic one.

Just like ghawfioyhaweofih might meet the syntactic rules for an English
word, it isn't an element of Language(English).

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works.

Also, it would be a very bad system that tried to establish ALL of
"human knowledge" as the Truth Makers of the system, as such a system is
horribly redundant.

Also, any of the knowledge that is Empirical (based on measurement and
senses) and thus about the model of the universe that we happen to be
in, should be left as Empirical Model Knowldege, not converted to
Axiometric over all models.

You then run into the fact that there are things that we know data
points for that we do not understand the fundamental laws that drive
themm, and thus "logic" isn't the right tool to solve things with.

Le 21/11/2023 à 17:38, Peter Olcott a écrit :
> On 11/21/2023 9:16 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
....
>> Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a
>> result.
>
> He did not trust anyone to prepare his meals (not even himself)
> besides his wife and she had to go into the hospital so he starved
> himself to death.

It was far later than when he produced its works in logic.

Moreover Gödel, contrary to you Peter, is not a convicted pedophile who
pretended in court to be God.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 3:12:57 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> Le 21/11/2023 à 17:38, Peter Olcott a écrit :
> > On 11/21/2023 9:16 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> ...
> >> Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a
> >> result.
> >
> > He did not trust anyone to prepare his meals (not even himself)
> > besides his wife and she had to go into the hospital so he starved
> > himself to death.
> It was far later than when he produced its works in logic.
>
> Moreover Gödel, contrary to you Peter, is not a convicted pedophile who
> pretended in court to be God.

Wow: poor Olcotte has two correspondents beating him down now.
I will take his side if I can and try to balance things out a bit.
Now, can we instantiate L? If not then why don't you all fuck off.
I instantiate that L is R.
R stands confused by its representation, which is discrete, versus claims and careful proofs that it can be continuous.
In the chasing of the digits it is true that the continuum can alight, and yet none are quite claiming the obvious: there are more schools of number, and these help to prove that R is incomplete. Somehow we must find our way through the discrete means that we are given, and what, take the continuum on faith? No: the very rotation of a coffee mug upon your table top, whether level or blemished; conductive even, or insulating; No matter these terms the terrestrial nature of your coffee mug there may be relevant. That gravitation could find its way in cryptically; in a distributed fashion; universally: here would the the great Tau. This is the one we are after.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 3:57:19 PM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 3:12:57 PM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > Le 21/11/2023 à 17:38, Peter Olcott a écrit :
> > > On 11/21/2023 9:16 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > ...
> > >> Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a
> > >> result.
> > >
> > > He did not trust anyone to prepare his meals (not even himself)
> > > besides his wife and she had to go into the hospital so he starved
> > > himself to death.
> > It was far later than when he produced its works in logic.
> >
> > Moreover Gödel, contrary to you Peter, is not a convicted pedophile who
> > pretended in court to be God.
> Wow: poor Olcotte has two correspondents beating him down now.
> I will take his side if I can and try to balance things out a bit.
> Now, can we instantiate L? If not then why don't you all fuck off.
> I instantiate that L is R.
> R stands confused by its representation, which is discrete, versus claims and careful proofs that it can be continuous.
> In the chasing of the digits it is true that the continuum can alight, and yet none are quite claiming the obvious: there are more schools of number, and these help to prove that R is incomplete. Somehow we must find our way through the discrete means that we are given, and what, take the continuum on faith? No: the very rotation of a coffee mug upon your table top, whether level or blemished; conductive even, or insulating; No matter these terms the terrestrial nature of your coffee mug there may be relevant. That gravitation could find its way in cryptically; in a distributed fashion; universally: here would the the great Tau. This is the one we are after.

I have to confess I did spend a great deal of time on a complex mass theory way back well before polysign numbers came along. Em and omega, M and W, say, as a complex pair, and what would ensue? Would we still sort of have the DC bias, say, that is g, and really every good diagram of a physical layout could have a gee hat somewhere on it, including into the page, which I think is the silent version as well, and though I don't generally toy with silent versions, maybe it is about time. Already I see that an option with MU as the silent version is so active that I will have to investigate, but now now. The neutral one as silent certainly does seem very sensible over all. As to where though we should ever get to see the neutral one: it certainly is invisible in the product, other than literally being the scalar form; DC? Magnitude, certainly, and I must mention my dog Magnitude here, and in her honor, so that I can try to achieve her level of loyalty to me, that the image is in scalar form, yet we will be caught in a pixelated view, is not necessarily desirable until these pixels become rays that meet our eyes in any direction that we travel. This omnipresent display we know as reality. It is somewhat a theoretical construction. Anyway, the bit about the zero dimensional pixel and the isotropic rays, is it terribly difficult to hide some matter there? In a kaleidoscope of mirrors (are these Bragg planes and all that?) it could be for atoms at their level; supposedly providing complete absorption and emission on their own terms, in their own ways, even individual electrons deciding whether to flip up or not the next time a 142 GHz ray comes their way. The missed opportunities must be immense, no? A lone electron shouts out "Hurray, I got a flip today!". Meanwhile down in the physics lab another poor electron is getting whacked against a 45 degree back wall by a laser beam going 'bang, bang, bang, bang' incessantly, and the electron is thinking "OK, I'm totally flipped out here, right?". Now I'm imagining the Revenge of the Electron Show, or some such, harking back to mean things people have done to electrons, never caring at all about what we put them through.

Should we anticipate a counter-photon? A little blip that goes out isotropically, but does not deliver energy... hmmm. I'll bet Susskind would have something to say about that. The question of whether the information would be delivered without the energy: would this enter a language theory? As we allow in instantiable forms from physics to what degree can we demand actual protocol of particles? That seems to me too much freedom, yet the very concept of a language is that. I guess these langauages are supposed to be the brahches of physics? Of course though everyone is after the Tau.I think mu could be this tau with its family of forms. This is not to say that I have this Tau yet,,.but it possibly does just stand there freely as:
T,
and that's it. It's multiple forms are structured, and playing out the language theory thing here, there is freedom to construct. Still the hope is that the results have physical correspondence. This would not just be some abstract math construction: it would be a unification of such dimension that the boundary between mathematics and physics could evaporate, along with the boundary to philosophy potentially as well. Just how grand did you want your grand unification theory to be? I suppose I do remember reading Bohm to having some similar level of thought in Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Weyl's Space-Time-Matter sits right next to it on the shelf.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> On 11/21/2023 9:16 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> >> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
> >> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
> >>
> >> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
> >>
> >> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
> >> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
> >
> > Is the English translation of these symbols thus?:
> > There exists x in language L such that L implies x and L implies not x.?
> *No that is not it*
> There exists an x in the language of L such that there is no sequence
> of inference steps in F that derives x and there is no sequence of
> inference steps in F that derives ~x.
> > I'm not seeing how a language implies anything until it is instantiated, so I guess I'm missing some of the connotation here.
> > I just want to respectfully mention too, that the persistence of Olcott on these fundamental workings is impressive.
> > Still, I wonder, to what degree can headway be found down there?
> I have found that the incompleteness criteria incorrectly determines
> that a formal system is incomplete on the basis that a self-
> contradictory (thus incorrect) x proves that the formal system is
> incomplete.
> > Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a result.
> He did not trust anyone to prepare his meals (not even himself)
> besides his wife and she had to go into the hospital so he starved
> himself to death.
> > I do not recommend this to any; not even a GI: keep your power supply fully charged when possible, and be wary of depleting it too far.
> > As well, the whole sugar thing... seems like brain food to me.
> >
> > I suppose where I have 'implies' there is a bit more going on.
> > I don't use those symbols, nor did the logic course that I took, as I recall.
> >
> > One of the most treacherous activities is the construction of your own language L.
> *Been there done that*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> > Upon establishing a strong and bulletproof L nobody will understand you..
> >
> It is only a few augmentations to the syntax of FOL.

Still not sure what FOL is, but I do have:
sentence
: atomic_sentence
| sentence IMPLIES sentence
| sentence IFF sentence
| sentence AND sentence
| sentence OR sentence
| quantifier VARIABLE sentence
| '~' sentence %prec NOT
| '(' sentence ')'
; atomic_sentence
: PREDICATE '(' term_list ')'
| term '=' term
; term
: FUNCTION '(' term_list ')'
| CONSTANT
| VARIABLE
; term_list
: term_list term
| term
; quantifier
: THERE_EXISTS
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

and yes, this signature that I leave above is for his work, so I've repeated his signature upon it; some minor usenet snivelling driveller will complain; no doubt. It's a quote from the last page of his own link above. It makes me uncomfortable to see so much attention to detail. In those lists the usage of ' : | ; ' is just an ordering thing I guess, first and last being frames almost. As I sick you language onto the real value the poor devil falls apart immediately, yet where in your language are noun and verb? We see the categories of constant, variable, and function, but I disagree. This choice of segregation is too loose. We need to insert more racist langauge here on these specifiers. Keep your mustache trimmed short, sir.

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:28:36 AM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> > On 11/21/2023 9:16 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:39:49 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
> > >> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be
> > >> used for a similar undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
> > >>
> > >> An epistemological antinomy is a self-contradictory expression.
> > >>
> > >> ∀L ∈ Formal_System
> > >> (Incomplete(L) ≡ ∃x ∈ Language(L) ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x)))
> > >
> > > Is the English translation of these symbols thus?:
> > > There exists x in language L such that L implies x and L implies not x.?
> > *No that is not it*
> > There exists an x in the language of L such that there is no sequence
> > of inference steps in F that derives x and there is no sequence of
> > inference steps in F that derives ~x.
> > > I'm not seeing how a language implies anything until it is instantiated, so I guess I'm missing some of the connotation here.
> > > I just want to respectfully mention too, that the persistence of Olcott on these fundamental workings is impressive.
> > > Still, I wonder, to what degree can headway be found down there?
> > I have found that the incompleteness criteria incorrectly determines
> > that a formal system is incomplete on the basis that a self-
> > contradictory (thus incorrect) x proves that the formal system is
> > incomplete.
> > > Let's not forget that Godel sort of got stuck and went hungry as a result.
> > He did not trust anyone to prepare his meals (not even himself)
> > besides his wife and she had to go into the hospital so he starved
> > himself to death.
> > > I do not recommend this to any; not even a GI: keep your power supply fully charged when possible, and be wary of depleting it too far.
> > > As well, the whole sugar thing... seems like brain food to me.
> > >
> > > I suppose where I have 'implies' there is a bit more going on.
> > > I don't use those symbols, nor did the logic course that I took, as I recall.
> > >
> > > One of the most treacherous activities is the construction of your own language L.
> > *Been there done that*
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF
> > > Upon establishing a strong and bulletproof L nobody will understand you.
> > >
> > It is only a few augmentations to the syntax of FOL.
> Still not sure what FOL is, but I do have:
> sentence
> : atomic_sentence
> | sentence IMPLIES sentence
> | sentence IFF sentence
> | sentence AND sentence
> | sentence OR sentence
> | quantifier VARIABLE sentence
> | '~' sentence %prec NOT
> | '(' sentence ')'
> ;
> atomic_sentence
> : PREDICATE '(' term_list ')'
> | term '=' term
> ;
> term
> : FUNCTION '(' term_list ')'
> | CONSTANT
> | VARIABLE
> ;
> term_list
> : term_list term
> | term
> ;
> quantifier
> : THERE_EXISTS
> > --
> > Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> and yes, this signature that I leave above is for his work, so I've repeated his signature upon it; some minor usenet snivelling driveller will complain; no doubt. It's a quote from the last page of his own link above. It makes me uncomfortable to see so much attention to detail. In those lists the usage of ' : | ; ' is just an ordering thing I guess, first and last being frames almost. As I sick you language onto the real value the poor devil falls apart immediately, yet where in your language are noun and verb? We see the categories of constant, variable, and function, but I disagree. This choice of segregation is too loose. We need to insert more racist language here on these specifiers. Keep your mustache trimmed short, sir.

Not Z?
Donetsk me.
Well, perhaps Dnieper me, lately.
Certainly, a fine boundary for Europe and all that white trash; hair trimmed short; skinny and flexed. Asia to the other side, and never a bridge to follow. This is as it will be under American rule. Enjoy your sellouts, and do keep poised for the latest disinformation. Sure, it gets old. That's why there's always something new. That's called the news.
Fully infiltrated: full control, and where not why not, and who's going to do the deed? Private parties on contract: the shrewd state, maybe... the shrew state? as opposed to the deep state? No, they go connected, afaict. I guess though I could politely use the shrew state since so many are in denial of the deep state these days. Who made that pronouncement? Can we please have some media acountability in that one? Anybody? Seems like a Orfalea(sp?) thing, maybe.

So lame to see Olcott stooping over to the old ways.
His function and his value on the same stage as if you could pick and choose either for the other. I believe this time it is the cashew butter left upon the chocolate bar.
I think that sounds good, but to admit it is another thing entirely.

Is it possible that we could get into wave theory here; possibly as a language again, and make some headway? Particularly the duality/parity of it all.... did I get a typo in there? Did I mean a parody? I'm sorry, did you mean to state that none of your work shall have any physical implications? That you will remain in the purely arithmetic? Mathematical? In parody form mathemagical, perhaps? Religious connotations aside, I could see the priest showing up dressed as a clown one day, as a play on identity; and educatory investigation of identity politics; the farce is on, you see? If you won't have the force with you, then we know what it is you will have. May the farce run strongly in your veins, kind sir, but as blows come to blows, and you're drinking from a hose, and its backing up in your mouth pretty good; Perhaps it is time to cut off after the prime; all the prime? What the prime? Is this prime time? Is it prime time? Now?
1 2 3 | 4 5 | 6 7 | 8 9 10 11 | 12 ...
Did somebody say they'd like a few more breakpoints? Um. I guess I got some.. How is that for protocol?
That's some dandy there.
The basis breakpoint is still present, but these other breaks are well, yes, they will show themselves. Every prime has all the non-neutral signs dancing all the way through, you see? They all act as bases in this way, and in polysign this 'way' is of the mu, which is the one sign, which essentially begets the others anyway as powers. that they all do the same all over again casts doubt upon order, and the perfect symmetry of the simplex coordinate system likewise provides so much symmetry really as to help make things indiscernible perhaps. Kaleidoscopic they are. That six after the second break is really something, and then, as you all cast such high value on your primes what of P7? In some ways it is just hum-drum here. The six have harmonics coming out their double triple ears. Now, normally, sign can be taken as flat, but in P6 you've got to admit that we are way less flat than P7. Still, P7 does not go flat either. These many ways all settle when we declare their type to be say P7, and we do order them as such in mu based notation. That they carry this order inherently, you may see, or come to see, perhaps, is quite a basic difference to the Cartesian form, which by the way is a misnomer I have written upon here much before. It would be much to the Cartesian products favor to have something like
X=X, XX=Y, XXX=X, XXXX=Y, ...
but no: you have to wait for abstract algebra, or for complex numbers, if you believe in them, and even then the signs aren't quite right.
To the Cartesian way of doing things P6 is in R^5, or RxRxRxRxR, but by abstract algebra this is RxCxC, and now you see, as to which set R is a subset of, you have your choice of three. Hmmm.... Doesn't seem quite right, does it...