Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why Tarski is wrong --- Montague, Davidson and Knowledge Ontology
 providing situational context.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:20:27 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <vrkhmb$29m93$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me>
 <7f68c434c15abfc9d4b645992344f0e851f031a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vr4t3e$bkso$5@dont-email.me> <vr50bg$ed3o$5@dont-email.me>
 <vr5abg$m5ov$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ea8c8f1c661d0f2eef855af9b4c171d4f574826@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6po4$1udpn$7@dont-email.me>
 <4965dcbb84fc29c9ba9d3cea39b59a8608bfeb66@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7v51$2u81k$3@dont-email.me>
 <7db5f56a38a6b6eda2b63acc2568f5dedcc55efd@i2pn2.org>
 <vr9fp6$bv13$5@dont-email.me> <vrbrkd$2ii4j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbss5$2j07c$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd0fa97e2387ba4bca36b40ca16925933b35d9a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrfe7q$1oabl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0e92642bf4519e50ba48d51b52d17749c6e19664@i2pn2.org>
 <vri3va$3egq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9495b0ea31b3c2559cf9515bfabe071d48cc9d39@i2pn2.org>
 <vrinjq$kefg$2@dont-email.me> <vrj702$14v65$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjboo$17u8e$2@dont-email.me> <87h63mqizb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:20:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc3172959e827479033dd9169def9845";
	logging-data="2414883"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+w1tlSyasEa1FM4daCx+RSePg4Q/PwWMdwJSFIMz/MtQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AYQiXpy5+1EHWp0IpsXRBFrxqBo=
In-Reply-To: <87h63mqizb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2510

On 21/03/2025 19:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
> My understanding is that Gödel proved that there are statements
> that are true but not provable.

Yes. Incompleteness.

> It's still not possible for both
> X and not-X to be provable.  If proofs exist for both, at least
> one of the proofs must be flawed.

I'd be interested to see a proof of that conjecture.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within