On 4/13/2013 11:19 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > On 12/04/2013 6:59 PM, fom wrote: >> >> If you try to use it in a proof concerning the >> theory of the natural numbers written in >> the object language, then you have to explain >> it in the signature and your theory is no >> longer a standard theory. > > I've never said what I try to prove about cGC is a FOL. > On the contrary, I've always claimed it as a meta-proof > about a _meta statement_ . But that should constitute that > I use knowledge outside the understanding of FOL as a reasoning > framework. >
Yes. I have been fully aware of that.
But, when people ask for standard explanations and definitions, you simply repeat how you know what you are talking about and fail to provide those answers.
People ask for those definitions to be substantiated because you are using unfamiliar representations.
In addition, the use of the qualifier "meta" need not correspond with the usual sense of the word when syntax from a computational context is being used. That particular jargon occurs with slightly different meanings in the professional domain of logicians and the professional domain of computer science. The "semantic web" (do they even still use that term?) is not about defining meaning for an uninterpreted syntax.
You defeat your own purposes by being argumentative.
In your defense, newsgroup forums are not going to be very sympathetic places to obtain a review of ideas.