When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

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

On 4/1/23 1:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>

Right, a statement G, that asserts it is unproveable in F, can not
correctly be proven **IN F** to be unprovable.

In the cases we have been talking about, it CAN be proven in a Meta-F to
be unprovable in F, and true in F, thus we HAVE the incompleteness of F
proven (in Meta-F), there is a true statement in F that can not be
proven in F.

You seem to not understand the importance of the "Theory" that you are
working in, but that should be an essential to your "Correct Reasoning"
system, as the "Theory" you are in defines the actual set of "Truth
Makers" that are available to establish Truth and Provability.

On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>

No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
is incomplete.

This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
possibly be true under any circumstance.

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

On 4/1/23 1:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>

Yes, we can show that it is impossible to prove G in F based on the fact
that G effectively asserts that it is unprovable, and thus a proof of G
in F, would make G false, and thus we have proven an impossible statement.

On the other hand, the mere fact that we can't prove G in F, makes G
true, and by that fact, unprovable.

You want to make this as an indication that G must not be a Truth
Bearer, but that can only be done by ignoring the fact that the ACTUAL
statement G is just a mathematical claim that no number g exists that
satisfies a given Primative Recursive Relationship (which, by definition
is a computable relationship), and such a statement ALWAYS has a truth
value, as either such a number exists or it doesn't.

The other flaw in you logic is the statement that "G asserts that it is
unprovable in F" doesn't actually occur in F, but can only be derived in
Meta-F, so the apparency that we have some sort of proof in F isn't
actually there, as it occures in Meta-F, and there is absolutely NO
conflict for being able to prove in Meta-F that there is no proof of G in F.

You are just showing you don't understand how such "Theories" can
interact, which is a fundamental flaw in you idea of "Correct
Reasoning", in that it doesn't seem to be applicable to actual "Formal
Logic" which is based on such ideas.

On 4/1/23 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>
> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
> is incomplete.

No, not self-contradictory, as there is a set of logic values that
satifies the relationship, G being True but Unprovable.

Also, MANY self-contradictory expressions can be proven in formal logic
systems, this happens as soon as you make you system inconsistant, which
appears to have happened to your system.

>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>
>

But that isn't the sentence we are looking at, so you are just arguing
via logical fallacy.

Yes, G can't be proven, so it must be True, since the actual G is a
truth-bearer (but you just don't understand it).

You claim that G is not a "Truth Bearer" is just an admission that you
logic system can't handle the needed level of complexity to handle the
properties of the whole numbers.

it just seems this whole topic is just too complicated for your brain,
as it seems you can only deal with "kiddy" logic, not anything that has
any real complexity.

On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>
> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
> is incomplete.
>
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>
>

"This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make it
true.

When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
in F that no such proof exists in F.

Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
because F is incomplete.

Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.

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

On 4/1/23 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>
>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
>> is incomplete.
>>
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>
>>
>
> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make it
> true.

Which isn't the sentence being talked about, so just a Strawman.

>
> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
> in F that no such proof exists in F.

Which means you endorse the concept of the Strawman as a valid for of
logic. You are LITERRALLY using a precisely defined Strawman Fallacy,
and claiming it must be valid logic.

You CAN'T drop the Godel Numbers and actually do the proof. You are
stuck in you LIE.

You can't talk about a statement "G" if you change what it says.

You are just proving you are too stupdi to be trusted with the tools of
logic.

>
> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
> because F is incomplete.

Nope, G is unprovable in F, because it IS unprovable and True. This is
PROVEN by a proof that you can't find an actual flaw in. Your claims
that it comes up with a wrong result just prove that YOUR logic system
is inconsistent, BY DEFINITION.

>
> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>

Except the statement G in F ISN'T self-contradictiory, and in fact seems
to be totally unintelligible to you, because you are just too stupid.

You are just proving your total lack of understanding of the fundamental
basics of logic.

On 4/1/23 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>
>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
>> is incomplete.
>>
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>
>>
>
> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make it
> true.
>
> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>
> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
> because F is incomplete.
>
> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>

I'll point out the stupdity of your arguement. The statement you claim
is G in F might not even be expressible in F. We have no basis to claim
that F has a "provable" predicate in it, or a way for G to reference its
self.

Thus, your G is shown to not be the actual G used by Godel, and thus
must be a Strawman error.

Your claim that you can "re-interprete" statements in a Theory based on
other information, from OUTSIDE the Theory, means that we can just
re-interprete YOUR statements to means something like"

Godel must be wrong because is ideas break my "precious" ideas that all
truth must be provable, so I am going to just hold my breath till I turn
blue and yell "He's wrong" until everyone decides to agree with me.

Your argument literally has less validity than that.

On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>
>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
>> is incomplete.
>>
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>
>>
>
> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make it
> true.
>
> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>
> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
> because F is incomplete.

Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
us free to simply guess WHY.

When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
in F because F is incomplete.

>
> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>

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

On 4/1/23 12:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
>>> is incomplete.
>>>
>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make
>> it true.
>>
>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>> because F is incomplete.
>
> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
> us free to simply guess WHY.

No, we can see that in Meta-F.

Or, are you too stupdid to see how that works.

Note, we are NEVER allowed to "simply guess" as we can only know things
that we can actually PROVE. Yes, we can speculate, but speculation
doesn't lead to knowing something.

I guess your "Correct Reasoning" doesn't understand how to actually
correctly reason about things.

>
> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
> in F because F is incomplete.

But that knowledge is only available in Meta-F, and THAT breaks your
"contradiction".

We can prove, in Meta-F that G is True, without forcing a contradiction
on the provability of G in F.

All you are doing is showing you don't understand the fundamental method
of the "Theory", which is a core attribute of Formal Logic.

>
>>
>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>
>
>
>

On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal system
>>> is incomplete.
>>>
>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make
>> it true.
>>
>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>> because F is incomplete.
>
> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
> us free to simply guess WHY.
>
> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
> in F because F is incomplete.
>

When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.

Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
from the point at hand.

>>
>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>
>
>
>

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

On 4/1/23 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in
>>>>> F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>> system
>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make
>>> it true.
>>>
>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>> because F is incomplete.
>>
>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>
>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>
>
> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.

Except that you can't do that in F, since that statement isn't G in F.

You are just showing your ignorance of what is actually happening and
using about as many Fallacies as you can.

>
> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
> from the point at hand.

Nope, we can prove in meta-F that G is not provable in F.

You clearly don't understand what a PROOF is and how "Theories" work.

You are just stock in your kindergarten level logic that doesn't
understand how to handle the "real thing"

Too bad you are just that dumb.

You emotional state is maybe not even to that level, since you are still
refusing to actually answer th erebuttals, and thus leaving all of them
out there unrebutted, proving that you don't actually have an answer to
any of them,

>
>>>
>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in
>>>>> F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>> system
>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not make
>>> it true.
>>>
>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that itself is
>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>> because F is incomplete.
>>
>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>
>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>
>
> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>
> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
> from the point at hand.

When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*

>>>
>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine that
>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

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

On 4/1/23 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in
>>>>>> F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>>> system
>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>> make it true.
>>>>
>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>> itself is
>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>
>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>
>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>
>>
>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>
>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>> from the point at hand.
>
> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

Which isn't Godel's G, so you are doing the Strawman Error.

Also, how do you know you CAN create that statement? do you know that F
has a "provability" predicate, that wasn't one of the requriments for F.

Also, How do you know you can create a self-reference in F that way? Do
you know that F supports that form of logic, that wan't part of the
requirement of F.

Also, G asserting that it isn't provable in F, isn't a contradiction, it
has a totally valid logical result, that G is true and unprovable, and
only by assuming this isn't possible can you get the contradiciton, and
it has been shown that using that assumption breaks (makes it
inconsistent) any system that support the needed operation of the whole
numbers, so such an assumption

>
> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*

Nope, YOUR arguement is a Strawman BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. You are making
G in F a statement that it isn't in the proof, so you are just admitting
you are too dumb to understand logic.

You are just buring your reputation under you pile of lies.
>
>>>>
>>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine
>>>> that
>>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
>>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in
>>>>>> F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>>> system
>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true because
>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that cannot
>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>> make it true.
>>>>
>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>> itself is
>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>
>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is unprovable
>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus leaving
>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>
>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>
>>
>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>
>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>> from the point at hand.
>
> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>
> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>

Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)

the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
element of every equivalent proof.

Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.

Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
invalidated.

>>>>
>>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine
>>>> that
>>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable because it
>>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

On 4/1/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven
>>>>>>> in F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists
>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>> itself is
>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>> unprovable
>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>> leaving
>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>
>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>
>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>> from the point at hand.
>>
>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>
>
> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G

So you ADMIT it is a strawman?

The DEFINITION of a Strawman argument is replacing a statement with
another statment that is not precisely the original one, and arguing
about it.

Since you ADMIT that you aren't using Godel's G, you are ADMITTING your
argument is based on a FALLACY.

Unless you can prove you adjusted statement is actually equivalent **IN
F** you are just doing a fallacy. You can't do that, so you are shown to
be just a dummy.

>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)

Yes, from every epistemological antinomy, with the transformes done IN
META-F we an build a similar Primative Recursive Relationship to put
into the statement G.

>
> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
> element of every equivalent proof.

Yes, He understood that TRANSFORMING a epistemologiccal antinomey, from
a statement about Truth, to a statement about Provability (which makes
in no longer an epistemological antinomey) and the power of Mathematics,
we can get a statement that forces itself to be True and Unprovable, as
the alternative would be a statement that was provable (and thus must be
true) and also false. THAT is a contradiction, so can not occur.

>
> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.

But the final statement is NOT an epistemological antinomy, but a
statement derived by TRANSFORMING

>
> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
> invalidated.

Nope, YOUR SANITY is debunked.

You are just proving that your whole logic system is based on LIES.

You have FAILED.

You have just proved that you know NOTHING useful about logic, and you
"Correct Reasoning" is dead in the water, as it seems to be based on
this sort o fincorrect reasoning.

>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine
>>>>> that
>>>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable
>>>>> because it
>>>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven
>>>>>>> in F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists
>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>> itself is
>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a proof
>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>> unprovable
>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>> leaving
>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>
>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>
>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>> from the point at hand.
>>
>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>
>
> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>
> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
> element of every equivalent proof.
>
> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>
> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
> invalidated.
>

When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.

If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.

Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.

>>>>>
>>>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can determine
>>>>> that
>>>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable
>>>>> because it
>>>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

On 4/1/23 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven
>>>>>>>> in F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists
>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a
>>>>>> proof
>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>> unprovable
>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>> leaving
>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>
>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>
>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>
>>
>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>
>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>
>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>
>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
>> invalidated.
>>
>
> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

But G in F doesn't assert that, only your strawman.

>
> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>

No, all your statements a re lies. You have admitted tha tyou are using
the strawman fallacy.

> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>

But that statement is based on a LIE. The above G isn't the G of the
Proof, so you are just proving that you are working with Strawmen and Lies.

> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.

Nope, Every rebuttal has stated TRUTH.

YOU are stating the LIE, and showing you don't uderstand what Truth
actually is.

You give a statement that you say is G, but you admit that it isn't the
actual G of the proof, but you want to treat your FALSE G as the actual G.

That just proves you are LYING.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any system outside of the scope of self contradiction can
>>>>>> determine that
>>>>>> an ill-formed expression of language is not true or provable
>>>>>> because it
>>>>>> is ill-formed. If we ignore the fact that G and LP are ill-formed we
>>>>>> might be conned into believing that F is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven
>>>>>>>> in F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists
>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the formal
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a
>>>>>> proof
>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>> unprovable
>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>> leaving
>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not unprovable
>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>
>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>
>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>
>>
>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>
>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>
>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>
>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
>> invalidated.
>>
>
> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>
> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>
> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>
> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>

When G
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
asserts that
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
is unprovable in F
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
THIS G RIGHT HERE
cannot be proven in F
because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)

Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.

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

On 4/1/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven
>>>>>>>>> in F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists
>>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the
>>>>>>>> formal system
>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a
>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>>> leaving
>>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>> in F
>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not
>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>>
>>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
>>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>
>>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>>
>>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
>>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>>
>>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
>>> invalidated.
>>>
>>
>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>
>> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
>> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>>
>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>

Yep, ALL your rebuttals are just showing that YOU are the LIAR.

>
>
> When G
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
> asserts that
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
> is unprovable in F
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
> cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

So, you admit to using the Strawman Fallacy, as "Your G" isn't the G of
Godel, so what ever you prove about it doesn't matter to Godel's proof.

The G in F of Godel's proof says no such thing, and you even admit it.

All you are doing is piling up the proof that you are totally ignorant
about the topic.

>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)

Which you totally don't understand/

>
> Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
> formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
> mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.
>

Right, you totally don't understand and even ADMIT to using Fallacies.

You are pathetic, youi are just proving you don't understand what you
are talking about.

Your logic if full of FALLACIES and LIES.

You have admitted to owning Child Porn, and that "It was Ok", because
you are God. (But you clearly don't understand who God actually is).

You are just showing that you are totally mentally deficient.

On 4/1/2023 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven
>>>>>>>>> in F because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists
>>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the
>>>>>>>> formal system
>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a
>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>>> leaving
>>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>> in F
>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not
>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof in F
>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>>
>>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it would
>>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>
>>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>>
>>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are self-contradictory
>>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>>
>>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every proof is
>>> invalidated.
>>>
>>
>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>
>> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
>> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>>
>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>
>
>
> When G
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
> asserts that
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
> is unprovable in F
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
>  THIS G RIGHT HERE
> cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>
> Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
> formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
> mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.
>

When I show that the generic notion of mathematical incompleteness is
bogus by showing that it is bogus for every equivalent proof that Gödel
just referred to this is not any kind of fallacy.

Because I just proved that I do know what epistemological antinomies
are by providing an epistemological antinomy proves that I know what
they are:

> When G
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> asserts that
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> is unprovable in F
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> THIS G RIGHT HERE
> cannot be proven in F
> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

Antinomy
....term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox
or unresolvable contradiction.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

An empty unsupported claim that I am incorrect about this is the same as
claims of election fraud without any evidence of election fraud, the
tactic used by liars in an attempt to fool the gullible.

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

On 4/1/23 3:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> proven in F because it would be a proof in F that no such
>>>>>>>>>> proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the
>>>>>>>>> formal system
>>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a
>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>>>> leaving
>>>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>>> in F
>>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not
>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>> in F
>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>>>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it
>>>>> would
>>>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>>>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>>>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>>
>>>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>>>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>>>
>>>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>>>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are
>>>> self-contradictory
>>>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>>>
>>>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>>>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every
>>>> proof is
>>>> invalidated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>
>>> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
>>> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>>>
>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>
>>
>>
>> When G
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>> asserts that
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>> is unprovable in F
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>> cannot be proven in F
>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>
>> Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
>> formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
>> mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.
>>
>
> When I show that the generic notion of mathematical incompleteness is
> bogus by showing that it is bogus for every equivalent proof that Gödel
> just referred to this is not any kind of fallacy.

Except tha that you HAVEN'T shown that.

Incompleteness just requires that there exist SOME statement that it
True but not provable.

To change that to just about a statement that says it is True but
unprovable is just UNSOUND LOGIC.

All you are doing is proving that you think Proof by Example is a
correct logic arguement.

>
> Because I just proved that I do know what epistemological antinomies
> are by providing an epistemological antinomy proves that I know what
> they are:
>

> > When G
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> > asserts that
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> > is unprovable in F
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> > cannot be proven in F
> > because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.

Right, so you can't prove G in F, so what. Why do you need to?

You CAN prove that G is True, and that G is not provable by moving to a
Meta-System above F.

>
> Antinomy
> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox
> or unresolvable contradiction.
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy

And the "contradiction" is resolvable, If G is True, but also
Unprovable, then the statment, and all accepted logic, is statisfied.

Yes, you have proven that you can not "Prove" this statement in just F
itself, that is well known.

>
> An empty unsupported claim that I am incorrect about this is the same as
> claims of election fraud without any evidence of election fraud, the
> tactic used by liars in an attempt to fool the gullible.
>

What "unsupported" claim.

You have left DOZENS of rebuttals unanswered, ADMITTING that you don't
actually have an answer to them.

YOU are the one making "unsupported" claims. Try to generate an actual
FORMAL proof of your statements, that is, starting from the ACCEPTED
TRUTH-MAKERS of the system, and VALID and SOUND arguments, reach your
conclusion,

On 4/1/2023 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> proven in F because it would be a proof in F that no such
>>>>>>>>>> proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any formal
>>>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the
>>>>>>>>> formal system
>>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence that
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does not
>>>>>>>> make it true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be a
>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>>>> leaving
>>>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>>> in F
>>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not
>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>> in F
>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable in F
>>>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge away
>>>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F then
>>>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it
>>>>> would
>>>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of the
>>>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the one
>>>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>>>
>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>>
>>>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>>>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>>>
>>>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>>>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are
>>>> self-contradictory
>>>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>>>
>>>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>>>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every
>>>> proof is
>>>> invalidated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>
>>> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
>>> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>>>
>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>
>>
>>
>> When G
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>> asserts that
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>> is unprovable in F
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>> cannot be proven in F
>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>
>> Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
>> formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
>> mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.
>>
>
> When I show that the generic notion of mathematical incompleteness is
> bogus by showing that it is bogus for every equivalent proof that Gödel
> just referred to this is not any kind of fallacy.
>
> Because I just proved that I do know what epistemological antinomies
> are by providing an epistemological antinomy proves that I know what
> they are:
>
> > When G
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> > asserts that
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> > is unprovable in F
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
> > cannot be proven in F
> > because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>
> Antinomy
> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a paradox
> or unresolvable contradiction.
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy
>
> An empty unsupported claim that I am incorrect about this is the same as
> claims of election fraud without any evidence of election fraud, the
> tactic used by liars in an attempt to fool the gullible.
>

Incompleteness just requires that there exist SOME statement that it
True but not provable.

The only reason that Gödel has been able to get away with this is
because he is misconstruing provable in meta-F as true in F.

This is the way that analytical truth really works thus disagreeing with
it is the same as disagreeing that a baby kitten is not a type of ten
story office building.

*This system abolishes Gödel incompleteness and Tarski undefinability*
*Introducing the foundation of correct reasoning*

Just like with syllogisms conclusions a semantically necessary
consequence of their premises

Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□

(a) Some expressions of language L are stipulated to have the property
of Boolean true.
(b) Some expressions of language L are a semantically necessary
consequence of others.
P is a subset of expressions of language L
T is a subset of (a)

Provable(P,X) means P ⊨□ ~X
True(T,X) means X ∈ (a) or T ⊨□ X
False(T,X) means T ⊨□ ~X

On 4/1/2023 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> proven in F because it would be a proof in F that no such
>>>>>>>>>>> proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any
>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the
>>>>>>>>>> formal system
>>>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence
>>>>>>>>>> that cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does
>>>>>>>>> not make it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be
>>>>>>>>> a proof
>>>>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>>>>> leaving
>>>>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a
>>>>>>>> proof in F
>>>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not
>>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>>> in F
>>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable
>>>>>>> in F
>>>>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge
>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>>>
>>>>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>>>>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>>>>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are
>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>>>>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every
>>>>> proof is
>>>>> invalidated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>>
>>>> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
>>>> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When G
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>> asserts that
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>> is unprovable in F
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>> cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>
>>> Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
>>> formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
>>> mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.
>>>
>>
>> When I show that the generic notion of mathematical incompleteness is
>> bogus by showing that it is bogus for every equivalent proof that Gödel
>> just referred to this is not any kind of fallacy.
>>
>> Because I just proved that I do know what epistemological antinomies
>> are by providing an epistemological antinomy proves that I know what
>> they are:
>>
>>  > When G
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  > asserts that
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  > is unprovable in F
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  > cannot be proven in F
>>  > because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> Antinomy
>> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a
>> paradox or unresolvable contradiction.
>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy
>>
>> An empty unsupported claim that I am incorrect about this is the same as
>> claims of election fraud without any evidence of election fraud, the
>> tactic used by liars in an attempt to fool the gullible.
>>
>
> Incompleteness just requires that there exist SOME statement that it
> True but not provable.
>
> The only reason that Gödel has been able to get away with this is
> because he is misconstruing provable in meta-F as true in F.
>
> This is the way that analytical truth really works thus disagreeing with
> it is the same as disagreeing that a baby kitten is not a type of ten
> story office building.
>
> *This system abolishes Gödel incompleteness and Tarski undefinability*
> *Introducing the foundation of correct reasoning*
>
> Just like with syllogisms conclusions a semantically necessary
> consequence of their premises
>
> Semantic Necessity operator: ⊨□
>
> (a) Some expressions of language L are stipulated to have the property
> of Boolean true.
> (b) Some expressions of language L are a semantically necessary
> consequence of others.
> P is a subset of expressions of language L
> T is a subset of (a)
>
> Provable(P,X)   means P ⊨□ ~X
Provable(P,X) means P ⊨□ X // correction
> True(T,X)          means X ∈ (a) or T ⊨□ X
> False(T,X)         means T ⊨□ ~X
>
>

On 4/1/23 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2023 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/1/2023 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2023 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2023 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> proven in F because it would be a proof in F that no such
>>>>>>>>>>> proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No self-contradictory expressions can ever be proven in any
>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>> system because they are self-contradictory not because the
>>>>>>>>>> formal system
>>>>>>>>>> is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> the outer sentence refers to a self-contradictory sentence
>>>>>>>>>> that cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly be true under any circumstance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "This sentence is not true" is indeed not true yet that does
>>>>>>>>> not make it true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we drop Gödel numbers thus have G directly asserting that
>>>>>>>>> itself is
>>>>>>>>> unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F because it would be
>>>>>>>>> a proof
>>>>>>>>> in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus G is unprovable in F because G is self-contradictory in F not
>>>>>>>>> because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless we drop Gödel numbers it is impossible to see WHY G is
>>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>>> in F, diagonalization only shows THAT G is unprovable in F, thus
>>>>>>>> leaving
>>>>>>>> us free to simply guess WHY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a
>>>>>>>> proof in F
>>>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, then we know that it is not
>>>>>>>> unprovable
>>>>>>>> in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we see that G is unprovable in F because it would be a proof
>>>>>>> in F
>>>>>>> that no such proof exists in F, this is all that we need to know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any reference to meta-F is not a proof in F that G is unprovable
>>>>>>> in F
>>>>>>> thus merely an example of the strawman deception dishonest dodge
>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>> from the point at hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we make a G in F that does assert its own unprovability in F
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> this F right here that we just made is unprovable in F because it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only [fake] "rebuttal" to this requires the dishonest dodge of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> strawman deception to change the subject to a different F than the
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> that we just specified. *There are no legitimate rebuttals to this*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though it is not precisely Gödel's G
>>>>>
>>>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>>>
>>>>> the above shows that Gödel did know that self-contradiction is the key
>>>>> element of every equivalent proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because epistemological antinomies are semantically ill-formed
>>>>> expressions that are unprovable ONLY because they are
>>>>> self-contradictory
>>>>> we know that they are not unprovable for any other reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus when the whole concept of mathematical incompleteness is debunked
>>>>> then every use of mathematical incompleteness by each and every
>>>>> proof is
>>>>> invalidated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When G asserts that it is unprovable in F this cannot be proven in F
>>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>>
>>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>>
>>>> If the above G is unprovable in F only because it is self-contradictory
>>>> in F then it is not unprovable in F because F is incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> Every rebuttal of this is one kind of a lie or another.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When G
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>> asserts that
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>> is unprovable in F
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>>   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>> cannot be proven in F
>>> because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>>
>>> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:39-41)
>>>
>>> Thus every equivalent proof that Gödel refers to does not prove that its
>>> formal system is incomplete, thus universally nullifying the notion of
>>> mathematical incompleteness for all of these equivalent proofs.
>>>
>>
>> When I show that the generic notion of mathematical incompleteness is
>> bogus by showing that it is bogus for every equivalent proof that Gödel
>> just referred to this is not any kind of fallacy.
>>
>> Because I just proved that I do know what epistemological antinomies
>> are by providing an epistemological antinomy proves that I know what
>> they are:
>>
>>  > When G
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  > asserts that
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  > is unprovable in F
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  >   THIS G RIGHT HERE
>>  > cannot be proven in F
>>  > because it would be a proof in F that no such proof exists in F.
>>
>> Antinomy
>> ...term often used in logic and epistemology, when describing a
>> paradox or unresolvable contradiction.
>> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antinomy
>>
>> An empty unsupported claim that I am incorrect about this is the same as
>> claims of election fraud without any evidence of election fraud, the
>> tactic used by liars in an attempt to fool the gullible.
>>
>
> Incompleteness just requires that there exist SOME statement that it
> True but not provable.

Right, so to DISPROVE it, you must show that there are NO statements
that are True but not provable, not that there is some statement that
might be thought of as unprovable that isn't actually a true statement.