No that is the whole point. They never tell me where I am wrong they only are able to say that they really, really believe that I must be wrong, yet can never ever point to where.
James Burns in sci.math understands modern mathematical logic and tells you
where you go wrong. He also said in the recent Goedel thread
You show the signs of someone who is using technical terms without
understanding, as technobabble or bafflegab.
It may appear to the outside observer that my command of the various divergent terminology from the sub-fields of logic is incorrect because it is not always perfectly consistent with the conventional meaning in each of these diverse sub-fields.
I am not approaching these things from the frame-of-reference of conventional terminology or notational conventions because both are insufficiently expressive to convey my new insights.
I am approaching these things as pure conceptions beyond words. The conceptions themselves are my target the words are an after-thought.
This all would be totally useless if I was not also deriving a precise mathematical specification for these new insights. I have the YACC BNF grammar for Minimal Type Theory almost complete.
As I have been saying all along (even in the nearly final design) it has syntax (NOT SEMANTICS) that is mostly an augmentation to FOPL syntax (NOT SEMANTICS) to ensure that every variable is of a specific type.
The only other difference from FOPL syntax (NOT SEMANTICS) is that I am using Jim's suggested "@" <assign_alias> operator so that an expression can refer to itself:
// This expression is neither provable nor refutable in every formal system
// because is has pathological self-reference:
G @ ∀L ∈ Formal_Systems, ~∃Γ ⊂ L (Γ ⊢ G)
"@" means the LHS is assigned as an alias for the RHS.
There is no referencing / dereferencing needed, G is one and the same thing as the expression that refers to G. G is not referring to its name, G is referring to itself.
Above is Copyright 2017 Pete Olcott