As with everyone else you are so certain that I must be incorrect that you dismiss what I say out-of-hand without evaluation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:40 pmPete, you are STILL trying to build a system that is consistent AND complete.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:39 pmYou are conflating the existence of a contradiction with the Boolean evaluation of a contradiction.

Contradiction is asserting that the union of a pair of disjoint sets is not the empty set.

∃n ∈ ℕ (n > 5 & n < 3)

YOU.CAN. NOT. DO. THAT.

Gödel gave you the greatest gift in the world: a choice. So choose, damn it! Quit playing stupid games with yourself.

Here is a truth-bearer for you: consistency XOR completeness = 1

Pay close attention to the fact that XOR is NOT a truth-preserving relation. 1 XOR 1 = 0

Liar liar, pants on fire?

None of what you (or anyone else) has ever said points out any errors in the gist of my actual reasoning.

There is a very simple way of defining formal systems such that these formal systems can express every element of the entire set of all knowledge that can be expressed using language and simultaneously rejects all semantically paradoxes as semantically ill-formed.

I came up with this system on my own spending at least 12,000 hours since 1997, and very recently found that Wittgenstein came up with exactly the same thing. http://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

Also (just last night) I completed the key most important step of my Halting Problem refutation proving beyond all possible doubt that this refutation is unequivocally correct. I derived very simple words to explain the very simple process for utterly eliminating the pathological self-reference paradox that has always been an inherent aspect of the Halting Problem proof counter-examples.