Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"If Diet Coke did not exist it would have been necessary to invent it." -- Karl Lehenbauer


devel / comp.theory / Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

SubjectAuthor
* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
+* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|+* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|| `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||     `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||      `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||       `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||        `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||         `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||          `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|`- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningJeff Barnett
+* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
| `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|  +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|  |+* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|  ||`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|  || `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|  ||  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|  ||   `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|  |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|  | `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|  |  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|  |   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|  |    `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningBen
|   `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningBen
 `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
  +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningDennis Bush
  |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
  | `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningDennis Bush
  |  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
  |   +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningDennis Bush
  |   |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ veryolcott
  |   | `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ veryDennis Bush
  |   |  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ veryolcott
  |   |   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ veryDennis Bush
  |   |    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  |   |     `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Dennis Bush
  |   |      `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  |   |       `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Dennis Bush
  |   |        +- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
  |   |        `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  |   |         `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Dennis Bush
  |   |          `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  |   |           `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Dennis Bush
  |   `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningBen
   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
    +- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveBen
     `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveRichard Damon
      |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      | `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpRichard Damon
      |    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |     `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |      `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |       `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |        `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |         `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |          `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |           `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |            `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |             `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |              `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |               `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |                `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |                 `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |                  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |                   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      |                    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
      |                     `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
      `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveBen
       `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveBen
        |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        | +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Dennis Bush
        | |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        | | `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
        | `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveBen
        |  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        |   +* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
        |   |`* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        |   | `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
        |   |  `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        |   |   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
        |   |    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        |   |     `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is Richard Damon
        |   |      `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        |   |       `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
        |   `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveBen
        |    `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
        |     `* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscoveBen
        `- Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon

Pages:12345
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32407&group=comp.theory#32407

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:05:31 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:05:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 43
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NKY3brx14FqbCmkaXxyAnYQ7tXh8zkxeVztHQCYaScTZZ85+3RMYOCGQDNYvQz6pHUE/hQtCqCjG+dB!AvtErG94+Dxzpnc5zgEdRwUzkd/p7HOds5P1Lr2OYnz7k+OyH1D74WaPyNVHNXKW7xMabtEZBHI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2986
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:05 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>
>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies.
>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>
>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>
> <snip distractions>
>
>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>
> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>

All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning

<7DBfK.781$JXmb.659@fx03.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32411&group=comp.theory#32411

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.lang.semantics
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.lang.semantics
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <8RwfK.18499$L_b6.16718@fx33.iad> <SZqdnb9xZ_aAAuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <u5yfK.129$YFJb.83@fx04.iad> <p5udnQou4pydKOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <DpzfK.8209$pqKf.1571@fx12.iad> <jdqdnUA8k9lxWOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <l6AfK.119$XhAf.78@fx39.iad> <mKudnVWIM_TzTuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <yLAfK.9276$pqKf.4401@fx12.iad> <yP2dnYf2tfEcR-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <yP2dnYf2tfEcR-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 246
Message-ID: <7DBfK.781$JXmb.659@fx03.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:14:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11136
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:14 UTC

On 5/13/22 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 4:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 12:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 1:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>>>> takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be
>>>>>>>>>>> true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>> a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats is
>>>>>>>>>>> valid and even though premises and conclusion are
>>>>>>>>>>> semantically unrelated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue*
>>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>>>> takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> consequence of all of its premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, have you done the basic investigation to find out how
>>>>>>>>>> much of conventional logic you invalidate with that change?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It categorically changes everything that is broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are saying we need to throw out EVERYTHING we know and
>>>>>>>> start over?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change everything that diverges from my spec:
>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes
>>>>>>> a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all
>>>>>>> of its premises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think, especially with the comment below, people will decide
>>>>>>>> that your "new" logic systm isn't worth the cost to switch to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, that it may be hard to define "necessary consequence" in
>>>>>>>>>> a formal matter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {A,B} ⊢ C only when truth preserving operations are applied to
>>>>>>>>> {A,B} to derive C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what do you define truth perserving as?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Semantic relevance is maintained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Normally the phrase means that True Premises always generate
>>>>>>>> True Results (which means the statement "If the moon is made of
>>>>>>>> green cheese then ll dogs are cats" IS Truth Preserving, since
>>>>>>>> any time the premise is true (never) the conclusion is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that your example, while considered an
>>>>>>>>>> vaild inference by normal logic, can never be used to actually
>>>>>>>>>> prove its conclusion, so doesn't actually cause problems in
>>>>>>>>>> normal logic (can you show a case where it does?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With my correction true and unprovable is impossible,
>>>>>>>>> unprovable simply means untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have just stated that your new logic system can't
>>>>>>>> handle mathematics, and thus "Computer SCience" no longer exists
>>>>>>>> as a logical system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It corrects the divergence of classical and symbolic logic from
>>>>>>> correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This makes you system not much more than a toy for most people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, that at least by some meanings of your words, it could
>>>>>>>>>> be construed that you only accept as a correct deductive
>>>>>>>>>> argument, and arguement whose premises can at least some times
>>>>>>>>>> be true, but there are some statements we don't know if they
>>>>>>>>>> CAN be sometimes true, so your logic system would seem to not
>>>>>>>>>> allow doing logic with that sort of statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An analytic statement is only known to be true when it is
>>>>>>>>> derived by applying only truth preserving operations to all of
>>>>>>>>> its premises and all of its premises are known to be true,
>>>>>>>>> otherwise its truth value is unknown.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> KNOWN to be True, not IS TRUE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It remains unknown until it is known to be true or false.
>>>>>>> My system only eliminates impossibly true or false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you don't know what is still valid to use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your statement even admits that truth value might be unknow,
>>>>>>>> which might allow it to even be UNKNOWABLE (maybe just in that
>>>>>>>> system) if it can't be proven or refuted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unprovable in the system means untrue in the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what does 'untrue' mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Untrue means the same thing as Prolog's negation as failure.
>>>>
>>>> Which means... ?
>>>>
>>>> Prolog, as I remember, ASSUMES that anything not provable is FALSE
>>>> (not 'untrue').
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unprovable means untrue and does not mean false in Prolog.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We know that there is a number that solves an equation, but we
>>>>>> don't know that number, or how to compute that number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we say that it is true that such a number exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you defined your terms correctly, then yes because this has been
>>>>> stipulated in your deinitions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This means that we can define the floor of that number, which will
>>>>>> be an integer (call it N), is it true that this number exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That interger, MUST be either even or odd, so we know that either
>>>>>> iseven(N) is true or isodd(N) is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By your logic, the 'truth value' of both of those must be 'untrue'
>>>>>> since we can not prove which one it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the sort of problem you run into with your system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about an analytic statement that says it can
>>>>>>>> only be true if it is provable. Note, "its truth value is
>>>>>>>> unknown" doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value, just that
>>>>>>>> we don't know what that value is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Within any formal system unprovable in the system means untrue in
>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The entire body of analytic truth is constructed only on the
>>>>>>> basis of semantic connections between expressions of language, or
>>>>>>> expressions that are stipulated to have the semantic property of
>>>>>>> Boolean true. Lacking both of these and the expression is untrue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since axioms are provable on the basis that they are axioms then
>>>>>>> both of these factors that make an expression true also make it
>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You clearly are just stating words by rote and not actually
>>>>>> understanding them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
>>>>> language can possibly be true:
>>>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
>>>>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to
>>>>> (1) or the consequences of (2).
>>>>
>>>> So there exists an integer number N is neither Even or Odd? (it is
>>>> untrue for both tests)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you actually understand what that means.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Analytic Truth is truth that is provable, that is correct, but it
>>>>>> accepts that there is OTHER things that happen to be true but are
>>>>>> not provable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
>>>>> completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its
>>>>> meaning without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Empirical expressions of language also require sense data from the
>>>>> sense organs to verify their truth.
>>>>
>>>> You still don't understand, do you.
>>>>
>>>> You still confuse Truth with Knowledge.
>>> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
>>> language can possibly be true:
>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
>>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1)
>>> or the consequences of (2).
>>>
>>> Try and provide an example of a possible truth that does not require
>>> one of those two.
>>>
>>
>> The result of applying the operation of replacing N by N/2 if  N is
>> even or by 3N+1 if N is odd will eventually get you to the number 1
>> for all Natural numbers N > 0.
>>
>> This statement MUST be either True or False, by its nature, there is
>> no other possible state.
>>
>> This statement seems to be true, but it has unable to be proven to be
>> true.
>>
>> Yes, we can not validly USE the idea that this statement is true to
>> prove something else, because we know that it is still possible that
>> it won't be true. But we CAN use that it will either be true or false
>> to show something.
>>
>> That is an analytical expression that isn't proven to be an analytical
>> truth, but it may still be true,
>
> Probably an unconscious strawman error, that does not contradict my
> original claim because it is a strawman error.
>
> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
> I am referring to <is> true and you are referring to <might be> true,
> they are not the same.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ]

<e5032c85-3412-41bb-8544-25d46ac5f4a9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32412&group=comp.theory#32412

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:aa49:0:b0:69f:cd34:7b25 with SMTP id t70-20020a37aa49000000b0069fcd347b25mr5389871qke.744.1652483811387;
Fri, 13 May 2022 16:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:c09:0:b0:2e5:728f:b0d4 with SMTP id
9-20020a810c09000000b002e5728fb0d4mr8087111ywm.230.1652483811228; Fri, 13 May
2022 16:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <zaWdnfYK_d3-fuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca74d9fd-2e33-40e7-b7d1-f2d072eff3f2n@googlegroups.com> <0f-dnTOZ0rjaIOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0ba2a54f-0729-47ca-a3a8-dc6d3ed922f9n@googlegroups.com> <4KidnfWFNeX3XeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<868c573f-713a-4dd2-a310-50e4a637d7e4n@googlegroups.com> <Kb2dnUW7ONKrVOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<95f0c256-4987-46b8-98f9-2b047bd07695n@googlegroups.com> <69mdnUr8GvhiV-P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f3cb84cb-d900-4e36-9b6e-b9a38f7903b6n@googlegroups.com> <FJWdnamuhYGbT-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1c9654bd-24ba-44a7-96b7-c017705f5135n@googlegroups.com> <WvqdnXceCIt_RuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<22966bf6-4f99-4437-954d-be967cf5116en@googlegroups.com> <zaWdnfYK_d3-fuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e5032c85-3412-41bb-8544-25d46ac5f4a9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Tarski made the same mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:16:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:16 UTC

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are".
> >>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer.
> >>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input
> >>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your
> >>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself?
> >>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly
> >>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P).
> >>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met?
> >>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat
> >>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct.
> >>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
> >>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the
> >>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is
> >>>> simply untrue.
> >>>>
> >>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases)
> >>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that
> >>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs
> >>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria
> >>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
> >>>
> >>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition:
> >>>
> >>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning
> >>>
> >> Same post same author:
> >>
> >> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs
> >> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55
> >>
> >> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56
> >>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed.
> >> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs.
> >
> > It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner.
> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.

Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in.

>
> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must
> compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly
> specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs)
> at all.

But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P) give different answers for the same input.

And as you usefully pointed out, the halting problem doesn't deal in halt *deciders*. It deals in halt *determiners*. And unlike a halt decider H which can't even be asked if P(P) halts, we can ask a halt determiner that question but it still gets the wrong answer.

So the halting problem proofs still stand.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning

<HbadncJ5hvU6euP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32415&group=comp.theory#32415

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.lang.semantics
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:20:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:20:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.lang.semantics
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8RwfK.18499$L_b6.16718@fx33.iad>
<SZqdnb9xZ_aAAuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <u5yfK.129$YFJb.83@fx04.iad>
<p5udnQou4pydKOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DpzfK.8209$pqKf.1571@fx12.iad>
<jdqdnUA8k9lxWOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <l6AfK.119$XhAf.78@fx39.iad>
<mKudnVWIM_TzTuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yLAfK.9276$pqKf.4401@fx12.iad>
<yP2dnYf2tfEcR-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <7DBfK.781$JXmb.659@fx03.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7DBfK.781$JXmb.659@fx03.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <HbadncJ5hvU6euP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 260
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Tx5Yo0BDXWYSOjNEVokx/YXmdcb6C8kSqwFyFm/44FYja56qyOEBCz7MyAxQPcSNSB7j4ThycTFY94Q!+DYKLzKzsiuKiXAyxoQ2R1DcOc5GuVru/GChmIPUs30r+waqE4L74xwtqckgZ1VFqMsxzOSQ8cg=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12092
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:20 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 12:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 1:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>>>>> takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats
>>>>>>>>>>>> is valid and even though premises and conclusion are
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically unrelated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue*
>>>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>>>>> takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence of all of its premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And, have you done the basic investigation to find out how
>>>>>>>>>>> much of conventional logic you invalidate with that change?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It categorically changes everything that is broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you are saying we need to throw out EVERYTHING we know and
>>>>>>>>> start over?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change everything that diverges from my spec:
>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes
>>>>>>>> a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of
>>>>>>>> all of its premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think, especially with the comment below, people will decide
>>>>>>>>> that your "new" logic systm isn't worth the cost to switch to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that it may be hard to define "necessary consequence"
>>>>>>>>>>> in a formal matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {A,B} ⊢ C only when truth preserving operations are applied to
>>>>>>>>>> {A,B} to derive C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what do you define truth perserving as?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic relevance is maintained.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Normally the phrase means that True Premises always generate
>>>>>>>>> True Results (which means the statement "If the moon is made of
>>>>>>>>> green cheese then ll dogs are cats" IS Truth Preserving, since
>>>>>>>>> any time the premise is true (never) the conclusion is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that your example, while considered an
>>>>>>>>>>> vaild inference by normal logic, can never be used to
>>>>>>>>>>> actually prove its conclusion, so doesn't actually cause
>>>>>>>>>>> problems in normal logic (can you show a case where it does?)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With my correction true and unprovable is impossible,
>>>>>>>>>> unprovable simply means untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have just stated that your new logic system can't
>>>>>>>>> handle mathematics, and thus "Computer SCience" no longer
>>>>>>>>> exists as a logical system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It corrects the divergence of classical and symbolic logic from
>>>>>>>> correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This makes you system not much more than a toy for most people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that at least by some meanings of your words, it could
>>>>>>>>>>> be construed that you only accept as a correct deductive
>>>>>>>>>>> argument, and arguement whose premises can at least some
>>>>>>>>>>> times be true, but there are some statements we don't know if
>>>>>>>>>>> they CAN be sometimes true, so your logic system would seem
>>>>>>>>>>> to not allow doing logic with that sort of statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An analytic statement is only known to be true when it is
>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying only truth preserving operations to all of
>>>>>>>>>> its premises and all of its premises are known to be true,
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise its truth value is unknown.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> KNOWN to be True, not IS TRUE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It remains unknown until it is known to be true or false.
>>>>>>>> My system only eliminates impossibly true or false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you don't know what is still valid to use?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your statement even admits that truth value might be unknow,
>>>>>>>>> which might allow it to even be UNKNOWABLE (maybe just in that
>>>>>>>>> system) if it can't be proven or refuted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> unprovable in the system means untrue in the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what does 'untrue' mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Untrue means the same thing as Prolog's negation as failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means... ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Prolog, as I remember, ASSUMES that anything not provable is FALSE
>>>>> (not 'untrue').
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unprovable means untrue and does not mean false in Prolog.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know that there is a number that solves an equation, but we
>>>>>>> don't know that number, or how to compute that number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we say that it is true that such a number exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you defined your terms correctly, then yes because this has
>>>>>> been stipulated in your deinitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that we can define the floor of that number, which
>>>>>>> will be an integer (call it N), is it true that this number exists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That interger, MUST be either even or odd, so we know that either
>>>>>>> iseven(N) is true or isodd(N) is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By your logic, the 'truth value' of both of those must be
>>>>>>> 'untrue' since we can not prove which one it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the sort of problem you run into with your system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about an analytic statement that says it can
>>>>>>>>> only be true if it is provable. Note, "its truth value is
>>>>>>>>> unknown" doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value, just that
>>>>>>>>> we don't know what that value is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within any formal system unprovable in the system means untrue
>>>>>>>> in the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The entire body of analytic truth is constructed only on the
>>>>>>>> basis of semantic connections between expressions of language,
>>>>>>>> or expressions that are stipulated to have the semantic property
>>>>>>>> of Boolean true. Lacking both of these and the expression is
>>>>>>>> untrue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since axioms are provable on the basis that they are axioms then
>>>>>>>> both of these factors that make an expression true also make it
>>>>>>>> provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You clearly are just stating words by rote and not actually
>>>>>>> understanding them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
>>>>>> language can possibly be true:
>>>>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to
>>>>>> (1) or the consequences of (2).
>>>>>
>>>>> So there exists an integer number N is neither Even or Odd? (it is
>>>>> untrue for both tests)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you actually understand what that means.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Analytic Truth is truth that is provable, that is correct, but it
>>>>>>> accepts that there is OTHER things that happen to be true but are
>>>>>>> not provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
>>>>>> completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its
>>>>>> meaning without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Empirical expressions of language also require sense data from the
>>>>>> sense organs to verify their truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still don't understand, do you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still confuse Truth with Knowledge.
>>>> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
>>>> language can possibly be true:
>>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
>>>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1)
>>>> or the consequences of (2).
>>>>
>>>> Try and provide an example of a possible truth that does not require
>>>> one of those two.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The result of applying the operation of replacing N by N/2 if  N is
>>> even or by 3N+1 if N is odd will eventually get you to the number 1
>>> for all Natural numbers N > 0.
>>>
>>> This statement MUST be either True or False, by its nature, there is
>>> no other possible state.
>>>
>>> This statement seems to be true, but it has unable to be proven to be
>>> true.
>>>
>>> Yes, we can not validly USE the idea that this statement is true to
>>> prove something else, because we know that it is still possible that
>>> it won't be true. But we CAN use that it will either be true or false
>>> to show something.
>>>
>>> That is an analytical expression that isn't proven to be an
>>> analytical truth, but it may still be true,
>>
>> Probably an unconscious strawman error, that does not contradict my
>> original claim because it is a strawman error.
>>
>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>> I am referring to <is> true and you are referring to <might be> true,
>> they are not the same.
>>
>
> Then why dod you say "Possible truth", if you meant an ACTUAL truth.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32416&group=comp.theory#32416

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:22:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2970
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:22 UTC

On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what
>>>> the
>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>
>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>
>> <snip distractions>
>>
>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>
>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>
>
> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>

No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to
strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in
the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ]

<jMCdnV6F4bESdeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32417&group=comp.theory#32417

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:23:59 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:23:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Tarski made the same mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca74d9fd-2e33-40e7-b7d1-f2d072eff3f2n@googlegroups.com>
<0f-dnTOZ0rjaIOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0ba2a54f-0729-47ca-a3a8-dc6d3ed922f9n@googlegroups.com>
<4KidnfWFNeX3XeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<868c573f-713a-4dd2-a310-50e4a637d7e4n@googlegroups.com>
<Kb2dnUW7ONKrVOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<95f0c256-4987-46b8-98f9-2b047bd07695n@googlegroups.com>
<69mdnUr8GvhiV-P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f3cb84cb-d900-4e36-9b6e-b9a38f7903b6n@googlegroups.com>
<FJWdnamuhYGbT-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1c9654bd-24ba-44a7-96b7-c017705f5135n@googlegroups.com>
<WvqdnXceCIt_RuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<22966bf6-4f99-4437-954d-be967cf5116en@googlegroups.com>
<zaWdnfYK_d3-fuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5032c85-3412-41bb-8544-25d46ac5f4a9n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e5032c85-3412-41bb-8544-25d46ac5f4a9n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jMCdnV6F4bESdeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 127
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HAxtLtltyvNJFSGJ1U6XPU+NLLbo/FMt/oobhd1Q6anvCDNvB5gM7smVLEJmuwk6mhOnd1YHQ2sZkxA!WdZ1RiQJ7TethZBxPxeWu8y/3zexM9yBuM6EZjZ4oFGlOiAfdCru/sb+vgmV96ZiGT7wec9EAlE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9003
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:23 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are".
>>>>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input
>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your
>>>>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P).
>>>>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met?
>>>>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat
>>>>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct.
>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
>>>>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the
>>>>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is
>>>>>> simply untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases)
>>>>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that
>>>>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs
>>>>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria
>>>>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning
>>>>>
>>>> Same post same author:
>>>>
>>>> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs
>>>> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55
>>>>
>>>> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56
>>>>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed.
>>>> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs.
>>>
>>> It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner.
>> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
>> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
>> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
>
> Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in.
>
>>
>> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must
>> compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly
>> specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs)
>> at all.
>
> But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P) give different answers for the same input.

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H
has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running.

It has been empirically proven that H1(P,P)==1 is the correct halt
status for the input to H1(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven
correct simulation of the input to H1(P,P) that H1 derives halts.

When the actual facts contradict your expectations it is not the facts
that must change.

>
> And as you usefully pointed out, the halting problem doesn't deal in halt *deciders*. It deals in halt *determiners*. And unlike a halt decider H which can't even be asked if P(P) halts, we can ask a halt determiner that question but it still gets the wrong answer.
>
> So the halting problem proofs still stand.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ]

<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32419&group=comp.theory#32419

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:35:39 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 18:35:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
philosophical underpinnings ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KJ3dM0FVVA/34y98dMvt9FVD1BZj65N0jUqu1t/nNQFE1LSOsfsCdSWPX1HtOtVYoaY7CbIZbgFCya8!cfYF0GzMJ3xlWRm19XIvNifjcRaR3mJIoXRyqpLlRNWZHcXwV5gQSoBehrsY8rlY8UPKZKd07Cc=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4421
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:35 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do
>>>>> what the
>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>
>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>
>>> <snip distractions>
>>>
>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>
>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>
>>
>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>
>
> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the
> system.
>
> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to
> strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>
> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in
> the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding of
all of the subtle nuances of computer science.

The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic systems
systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when examined at the
very high level abstraction of the philosophical foundation of the
notion of (analytic) truth itself.

Wittgenstein had the exact same issue with mathematicians
learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of the
key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking for
granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly correct.

When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally invisible
to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Tarski made the same mistake ]

<3da07e12-b213-4e89-8b0b-893055d0e7ccn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32420&group=comp.theory#32420

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fd8d:0:b0:456:3481:603c with SMTP id p13-20020a0cfd8d000000b004563481603cmr6834491qvr.69.1652485053604;
Fri, 13 May 2022 16:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d88c:0:b0:2f7:bb41:1bd0 with SMTP id
a134-20020a0dd88c000000b002f7bb411bd0mr8234244ywe.199.1652485053401; Fri, 13
May 2022 16:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jMCdnV6F4bESdeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca74d9fd-2e33-40e7-b7d1-f2d072eff3f2n@googlegroups.com> <0f-dnTOZ0rjaIOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0ba2a54f-0729-47ca-a3a8-dc6d3ed922f9n@googlegroups.com> <4KidnfWFNeX3XeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<868c573f-713a-4dd2-a310-50e4a637d7e4n@googlegroups.com> <Kb2dnUW7ONKrVOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<95f0c256-4987-46b8-98f9-2b047bd07695n@googlegroups.com> <69mdnUr8GvhiV-P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f3cb84cb-d900-4e36-9b6e-b9a38f7903b6n@googlegroups.com> <FJWdnamuhYGbT-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1c9654bd-24ba-44a7-96b7-c017705f5135n@googlegroups.com> <WvqdnXceCIt_RuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<22966bf6-4f99-4437-954d-be967cf5116en@googlegroups.com> <zaWdnfYK_d3-fuP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5032c85-3412-41bb-8544-25d46ac5f4a9n@googlegroups.com> <jMCdnV6F4bESdeP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3da07e12-b213-4e89-8b0b-893055d0e7ccn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Tarski made the same mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:37:33 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 10160
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:37 UTC

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:24:06 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/13/2022 5:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/13/2022 5:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:17:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:32:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is easily shown to be factually incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False, as has been explained many times.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have empirically proven entirely different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expectation incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no time for people that very persistently insist on ignoring the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verifiable facts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So no time for yourself?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decide the halt status that its input specifies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The input, by definition, specifies P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>> That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So you're saying the requirement can't be met?
> >>>>>>>> I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat
> >>>>>>>> in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct.
> >>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a
> >>>>>> definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the
> >>>>>> liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is
> >>>>>> simply untrue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases)
> >>>>>> directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that
> >>>>>> requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs
> >>>>>> conclusively proves that the definition of the halting problem criteria
> >>>>>> is incorrect in these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The term decider doesn't really have a standard meaning
> >>>>>
> >>>> Same post same author:
> >>>>
> >>>> How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs
> >>>> to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56
> >>>>> Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed.
> >>>> Then it is no longer a computation AKA a pure function of its inputs..
> >>>
> >>> It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner.
> >> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
> >> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
> >> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives.
> >
> > Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in.
> >
> >>
> >> Not only must a halt decider compute the mapping from its inputs it must
> >> compute the mapping only on the basis of what its inputs explicitly
> >> specify otherwise it is not a computation (pure function of its inputs)
> >> at all.
> >
> > But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P) give different answers for the same input.
>
> It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status
> for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct
> simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H
> has proven that this correct simulation would never stop running.

But your H is a halt decider, not a halt determiner, so it has nothing to do with the halting problem.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32421&group=comp.theory#32421

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 00:48:03 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="15397"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183YSethCUcr1Zuv0dVxZkQ9r36DDoemjk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dpNuqeefRbKlfdUv3/mFMOTW6DU=
sha1:NK6QhYLnF+ccfeo/+GJzYHegMBg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.119771b533d6cb76c35f.20220514004803BST.87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 13 May 2022 23:48 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>
>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>> <snip distractions>
>>
>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>
>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>
> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.

Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind
you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32425&group=comp.theory#32425

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:04:22 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:04:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FCMO0VDsU8w01YaqcFnTu/43FcgPRPzdTnLiQbCVMAM61bEInTr+jg5bwJvc+wJaQ6nvESqn5pD0Ufo!v56B7IUYxA39z8w3MRoQQlPulnLIEM2XLqVPj669HCCRbzKAXGZrI7hbJEQAYloE7dHJDHtiCAk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3871
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:04 UTC

On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>
>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>> <snip distractions>
>>>
>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>
>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>
>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>
> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind
> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.
>

Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x) predicate can exist on the
basis of his failure to prove that the liar paradox is true.

The HP proves that no malformed halt decider that violates the
definition of a decider can correctly decide the halt status in some
cases because it is malformed.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning

<wwCfK.4169$ed43.16@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32431&group=comp.theory#32431

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.lang.semantics
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.lang.semantics
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8RwfK.18499$L_b6.16718@fx33.iad>
<SZqdnb9xZ_aAAuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <u5yfK.129$YFJb.83@fx04.iad>
<p5udnQou4pydKOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DpzfK.8209$pqKf.1571@fx12.iad>
<jdqdnUA8k9lxWOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <l6AfK.119$XhAf.78@fx39.iad>
<mKudnVWIM_TzTuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yLAfK.9276$pqKf.4401@fx12.iad>
<yP2dnYf2tfEcR-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <7DBfK.781$JXmb.659@fx03.iad>
<HbadncJ5hvU6euP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <HbadncJ5hvU6euP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 278
Message-ID: <wwCfK.4169$ed43.16@fx99.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:15:24 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12925
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:15 UTC

On 5/13/22 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 12:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 1:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Moon is made of green cheese then all dogs are cats
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is valid and even though premises and conclusion are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically unrelated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Here is my correction to that issue*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence of all of its premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And, have you done the basic investigation to find out how
>>>>>>>>>>>> much of conventional logic you invalidate with that change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It categorically changes everything that is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you are saying we need to throw out EVERYTHING we know and
>>>>>>>>>> start over?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Change everything that diverges from my spec:
>>>>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it
>>>>>>>>> takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary
>>>>>>>>> consequence of all of its premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think, especially with the comment below, people will decide
>>>>>>>>>> that your "new" logic systm isn't worth the cost to switch to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that it may be hard to define "necessary consequence"
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a formal matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> {A,B} ⊢ C only when truth preserving operations are applied
>>>>>>>>>>> to {A,B} to derive C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what do you define truth perserving as?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Semantic relevance is maintained.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Normally the phrase means that True Premises always generate
>>>>>>>>>> True Results (which means the statement "If the moon is made
>>>>>>>>>> of green cheese then ll dogs are cats" IS Truth Preserving,
>>>>>>>>>> since any time the premise is true (never) the conclusion is
>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that your example, while considered an
>>>>>>>>>>>> vaild inference by normal logic, can never be used to
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually prove its conclusion, so doesn't actually cause
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems in normal logic (can you show a case where it does?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With my correction true and unprovable is impossible,
>>>>>>>>>>> unprovable simply means untrue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then you have just stated that your new logic system can't
>>>>>>>>>> handle mathematics, and thus "Computer SCience" no longer
>>>>>>>>>> exists as a logical system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It corrects the divergence of classical and symbolic logic from
>>>>>>>>> correct reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This makes you system not much more than a toy for most people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, that at least by some meanings of your words, it could
>>>>>>>>>>>> be construed that you only accept as a correct deductive
>>>>>>>>>>>> argument, and arguement whose premises can at least some
>>>>>>>>>>>> times be true, but there are some statements we don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>> if they CAN be sometimes true, so your logic system would
>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to not allow doing logic with that sort of statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An analytic statement is only known to be true when it is
>>>>>>>>>>> derived by applying only truth preserving operations to all
>>>>>>>>>>> of its premises and all of its premises are known to be true,
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise its truth value is unknown.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> KNOWN to be True, not IS TRUE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It remains unknown until it is known to be true or false.
>>>>>>>>> My system only eliminates impossibly true or false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you don't know what is still valid to use?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your statement even admits that truth value might be unknow,
>>>>>>>>>> which might allow it to even be UNKNOWABLE (maybe just in that
>>>>>>>>>> system) if it can't be proven or refuted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> unprovable in the system means untrue in the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what does 'untrue' mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Untrue means the same thing as Prolog's negation as failure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means... ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prolog, as I remember, ASSUMES that anything not provable is FALSE
>>>>>> (not 'untrue').
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unprovable means untrue and does not mean false in Prolog.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We know that there is a number that solves an equation, but we
>>>>>>>> don't know that number, or how to compute that number.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can we say that it is true that such a number exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you defined your terms correctly, then yes because this has
>>>>>>> been stipulated in your deinitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This means that we can define the floor of that number, which
>>>>>>>> will be an integer (call it N), is it true that this number exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That interger, MUST be either even or odd, so we know that
>>>>>>>> either iseven(N) is true or isodd(N) is true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By your logic, the 'truth value' of both of those must be
>>>>>>>> 'untrue' since we can not prove which one it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the sort of problem you run into with your system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about an analytic statement that says it can
>>>>>>>>>> only be true if it is provable. Note, "its truth value is
>>>>>>>>>> unknown" doesn't mean it doesn't have a truth value, just that
>>>>>>>>>> we don't know what that value is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Within any formal system unprovable in the system means untrue
>>>>>>>>> in the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The entire body of analytic truth is constructed only on the
>>>>>>>>> basis of semantic connections between expressions of language,
>>>>>>>>> or expressions that are stipulated to have the semantic
>>>>>>>>> property of Boolean true. Lacking both of these and the
>>>>>>>>> expression is untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since axioms are provable on the basis that they are axioms
>>>>>>>>> then both of these factors that make an expression true also
>>>>>>>>> make it provable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You clearly are just stating words by rote and not actually
>>>>>>>> understanding them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression
>>>>>>> of language can possibly be true:
>>>>>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
>>>>>>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>> (1) or the consequences of (2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there exists an integer number N is neither Even or Odd? (it is
>>>>>> untrue for both tests)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you actually understand what that means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Analytic Truth is truth that is provable, that is correct, but
>>>>>>>> it accepts that there is OTHER things that happen to be true but
>>>>>>>> are not provable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
>>>>>>> completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its
>>>>>>> meaning without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Empirical expressions of language also require sense data from
>>>>>>> the sense organs to verify their truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still don't understand, do you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still confuse Truth with Knowledge.
>>>>> There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
>>>>> language can possibly be true:
>>>>> (1) It is stipulated to be true.
>>>>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1)
>>>>> or the consequences of (2).
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and provide an example of a possible truth that does not
>>>>> require one of those two.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The result of applying the operation of replacing N by N/2 if  N is
>>>> even or by 3N+1 if N is odd will eventually get you to the number 1
>>>> for all Natural numbers N > 0.
>>>>
>>>> This statement MUST be either True or False, by its nature, there is
>>>> no other possible state.
>>>>
>>>> This statement seems to be true, but it has unable to be proven to
>>>> be true.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we can not validly USE the idea that this statement is true to
>>>> prove something else, because we know that it is still possible that
>>>> it won't be true. But we CAN use that it will either be true or
>>>> false to show something.
>>>>
>>>> That is an analytical expression that isn't proven to be an
>>>> analytical truth, but it may still be true,
>>>
>>> Probably an unconscious strawman error, that does not contradict my
>>> original claim because it is a strawman error.
>>>
>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>> I am referring to <is> true and you are referring to <might be> true,
>>> they are not the same.
>>>
>>
>> Then why dod you say "Possible truth", if you meant an ACTUAL truth.
>>
>
> My system rejects expressions of language that are impossibly true such
> as expressions that are true and unprovable.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ]

<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32436&group=comp.theory#32436

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
philosophical underpinnings ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:27:35 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5356
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:27 UTC

On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned,
>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do
>>>>>> what the
>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>
>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>
>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>
>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>
>>
>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the
>> system.
>>
>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to
>> strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>
>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in
>> the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>
> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding of
> all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>
> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic systems
> systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when examined at the
> very high level abstraction of the philosophical foundation of the
> notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>
> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of the
> key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking for
> granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly correct.
>
> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally invisible
> to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>

That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.

Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century
ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and thought
it not valuable)

You aseem to be refering to writings published post-humously about a his
comments on a paper he hadn't yet actually read, and that he never
repeated after actually reading the paper.

Yes, that is very good basis for claiming your idea have to be right.

You have shown ZERO understanding for the rules of logic, and that your
opinions are basically worthless.

If you want to try to ACTUAL PROVE something, based on REAL ESTABLISHED
rules of logic, go ahead and give a try.

Note, this means NOT just falling back to "the meaning of the words"
except when you are actually QUOTING the accepted meaning of those words
in the field and showing how they apply.

I don't know if I have ever seen you put together a string of logic more
that one or two steps before you go off on a "this must be true" side
track, and never actually use any of the fundamental definitions. (You
may quotes some of them, but then never actually use that definition in
your nest step of the proof).

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32438&group=comp.theory#32438

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:30:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="15397"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vDrUILE9TC3vHA/byg8bWSz2tUbY8c9E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XbVeDajuRugXEeJHpnPdCJHBR9E=
sha1:xdPR68ahOX8Tx26pE2vwvtCqkng=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.bee92bddd09939d0b2ae.20220514013005BST.87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:30 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>
>>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>
>>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>
>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind
>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.
>
> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)...

Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering
is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<iLCfK.538$cvmb.310@fx06.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32439&group=comp.theory#32439

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <iLCfK.538$cvmb.310@fx06.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:31:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 1721
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 00:31 UTC

On 5/13/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:

> The HP proves that no malformed halt decider that violates the
> definition of a decider can correctly decide the halt status in some
> cases because it is malformed.
>
>

So you accept as True the statement that "It is impossible to build a
Turing Machine that can compute the ACTUAL Halting Mapping of Turing
Machine and its input to whether that machine would halt given that
input, by being somehow given a representation of the machine and input"?

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32449&group=comp.theory#32449

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 22:34:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 22:34:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mZgNu4waEHd9vQNSyKWotWTpbPY1PaDV1SmLMV0xxijK9IEJNQ+GPHnT+HOL/TXHPEo+9gwxD4BBv8a!qG0qxmMsooS2y6q5DjbFdLhCo+VdcGOG5enc57BzlHUEdCSX9e+CC+M1dh/ZerYtzUdHIMisSr8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4192
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 03:34 UTC

On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>
>>>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>
>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind
>>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
>>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
>>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
>>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.
>>
>> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)...
>
> Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering
> is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do.
>

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some rare
cases that no one never noticed before.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<d25c4bcc-d665-4a2a-9593-b2d8f04a65a5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32452&group=comp.theory#32452

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:414d:b0:6a0:2035:f097 with SMTP id k13-20020a05620a414d00b006a02035f097mr5806672qko.458.1652500739839;
Fri, 13 May 2022 20:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:cc9:0:b0:64b:22ea:9165 with SMTP id
e9-20020a5b0cc9000000b0064b22ea9165mr8189171ybr.612.1652500739591; Fri, 13
May 2022 20:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d25c4bcc-d665-4a2a-9593-b2d8f04a65a5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 03:58:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4985
 by: Dennis Bush - Sat, 14 May 2022 03:58 UTC

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:35:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
> >>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
> >>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
> >>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
> >>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
> >>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
> >>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
> >>>>> <snip distractions>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
> >>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
> >>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
> >>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
> >>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
> >>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
> >>>>
> >>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
> >>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
> >>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken..
> >>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind
> >>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
> >>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
> >>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
> >>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.
> >>
> >> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)...
> >
> > Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering
> > is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do.
> >
> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some rare
> cases that no one never noticed before.

Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong. It's simply an impossible problem.

And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt determiner, not a halt decider. The former explicitly allows for a non-input to be represented by an input (i.e. for a turing machine to be represented by a string). The proofs just got the wording wrong. So unlike a halt decider H which according to you can't be asked if P(P) halts, a halt determiner can explicitly be asked if P(P) halts, but it still gets the wrong answer.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ]

<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32453&group=comp.theory#32453

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:01:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:01:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
philosophical underpinnings ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 112
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-n5ZPKhzPFibFf4TrXDrA7aIw6X9TJt0ZWR9gPjQ+J79XCqhwJBv7qqLQ4amxC5AI28kehU94UIA+tsk!2vttLOn915BiApWYE1gpHRxv6kFVqHHmGGVcVPOeuoR0ORBBAc6KmT4KarjRm522hqm62dtWIsE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6220
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 04:01 UTC

On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned,
>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do
>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>
>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the
>>> system.
>>>
>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to
>>> strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>
>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind
>>> in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>
>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding
>> of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>
>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when examined
>> at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical foundation of
>> the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>
>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of
>> the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking for
>> granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly correct.
>>
>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally invisible
>> to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>
>
> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>
> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century
> ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and thought
> it not valuable)
>

He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over everyone's
head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather than most
elegant bare essence.

> You aseem to be refering to writings published post-humously about a his
> comments on a paper he hadn't yet actually read, and that he never
> repeated after actually reading the paper.
>
> Yes, that is very good basis for claiming your idea have to be right.
>
> You have shown ZERO understanding for the rules of logic, and that your
> opinions are basically worthless.
>
> If you want to try to ACTUAL PROVE something, based on REAL ESTABLISHED
> rules of logic, go ahead and give a try.
>
> Note, this means NOT just falling back to "the meaning of the words"
> except when you are actually QUOTING the accepted meaning of those words
> in the field and showing how they apply.
>
> I don't know if I have ever seen you put together a string of logic more
> that one or two steps before you go off on a "this must be true" side
> track, and never actually use any of the fundamental definitions. (You
> may quotes some of them, but then never actually use that definition in
> your nest step of the proof).

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<6ZWdnZCCdc9JseL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32454&group=comp.theory#32454

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:15:16 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 23:15:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d25c4bcc-d665-4a2a-9593-b2d8f04a65a5n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <d25c4bcc-d665-4a2a-9593-b2d8f04a65a5n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <6ZWdnZCCdc9JseL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 70
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WXHOKF3GAi66YZQzFejLBloWOu5ak7HeSSlIOHyp6R8ahXdaELiZSiQwmE1+VwMLJCAWj/aB9+IDy97!Q8ROD1P+Nux84pYbGq45EhezAXjOBTgn/L+2eICx/Ze10xAxOxJorFQygbbGRh9d4R3tkJnrVZs=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5179
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 04:15 UTC

On 5/13/2022 10:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:35:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind
>>>>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
>>>>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
>>>>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
>>>>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.
>>>>
>>>> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)...
>>>
>>> Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering
>>> is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do.
>>>
>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some rare
>> cases that no one never noticed before.
>
> Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong. It's simply an impossible problem.
>
> And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt determiner, not a halt decider. The former explicitly allows for a non-input to be represented by an input (i.e. for a turing machine to be represented by a string). The proofs just got the wording wrong. So unlike a halt decider H which according to you can't be asked if P(P) halts, a halt determiner can explicitly be asked if P(P) halts, but it still gets the wrong answer.

That must compute the mapping form their inputs to their own final
accept / reject state.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32455&group=comp.theory#32455

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:07:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e15a6e7790c7684a121ff07a3ede6665";
logging-data="30013"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/uiJH7M38LRitj70cTRVAIlONgXIN+isg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Lc1VlbrhmXjRpw7Uv7CUV3tLKnE=
sha1:QxNSS2l+hUSV15e3WJ/rnNqxrcI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.98bd2deff3d74aaff8f5.20220514090754BST.87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 14 May 2022 08:07 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
> rare cases that no one never noticed before.

Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two
notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined,
are contradictory.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ]

<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32464&group=comp.theory#32464

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!81.171.65.16.MISMATCH!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx39.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad> <UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad> <aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:42:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7463
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 13:42 UTC

On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned,
>>>>>>>>>> so you
>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do
>>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to
>>>> strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>
>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind
>>>> in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>
>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding
>>> of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>
>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical
>>> foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>
>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of
>>> the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking
>>> for granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>
>>
>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>>
>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century
>> ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and
>> thought it not valuable)
>>
>
> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over everyone's
> head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather than most
> elegant bare essence.

Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding what
Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper).

As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have intensly
studied), this statement is solely from private notes that were
published after his death. If he really believed in this statement as
was sure of it, it would seem natural that he actually would of
published it.

It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an error
in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or he found his
logic error and thus stopped believing in that statement.

This make the "appeal" to him as an authority to rebut Godel incorrect,
as he never stood as an authority to make such a claim, he just
investigated it in private notes.

Perhaps he realized that his argument to try to prove that Truth can be
proven rested on the assumption of a definition that Truth was Provable
and thus is just a circular argument.

As I have put to you, PROVE that Truth must be Provable, or by your own
logic the statement isn't true. We KNOW (if we have any intelligence)
that there are Truths that we do not know about, so it is established
that some truths are at least unknown for now. What is the basis for
saying that there can't be an aspect that happens to be true even though
we can not prove it?

>
>> You aseem to be refering to writings published post-humously about a
>> his comments on a paper he hadn't yet actually read, and that he never
>> repeated after actually reading the paper.
>>
>> Yes, that is very good basis for claiming your idea have to be right.
>>
>> You have shown ZERO understanding for the rules of logic, and that
>> your opinions are basically worthless.
>>
>> If you want to try to ACTUAL PROVE something, based on REAL
>> ESTABLISHED rules of logic, go ahead and give a try.
>>
>> Note, this means NOT just falling back to "the meaning of the words"
>> except when you are actually QUOTING the accepted meaning of those
>> words in the field and showing how they apply.
>>
>> I don't know if I have ever seen you put together a string of logic
>> more that one or two steps before you go off on a "this must be true"
>> side track, and never actually use any of the fundamental definitions.
>> (You may quotes some of them, but then never actually use that
>> definition in your nest step of the proof).
>
>

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<ZpOfK.4919$XhAf.2741@fx39.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32465&group=comp.theory#32465

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx39.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d25c4bcc-d665-4a2a-9593-b2d8f04a65a5n@googlegroups.com>
<6ZWdnZCCdc9JseL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <6ZWdnZCCdc9JseL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <ZpOfK.4919$XhAf.2741@fx39.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:47:38 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5420
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 13:47 UTC

On 5/14/22 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 10:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:35:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 7:30 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:48 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can
>>>>>>>>>> do what the
>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know... I
>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that
>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is
>>>>>>> broken.
>>>>>> Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons
>>>>>> mind
>>>>>> you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y)
>>>>>> halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer
>>>>>> will you? As I've said before, asking questions you won't answer is
>>>>>> pretty much the closest one can come to such an admission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x)...
>>>>
>>>> Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering
>>>> is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do.
>>>>
>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some rare
>>> cases that no one never noticed before.
>>
>> Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong.  It's
>> simply an impossible problem.
>>
>> And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt
>> determiner, not a halt decider.  The former explicitly allows for a
>> non-input to be represented by an input (i.e. for a turing machine to
>> be represented by a string).  The proofs just got the wording wrong.
>> So unlike a halt decider H which according to you can't be asked if
>> P(P) halts, a halt determiner can explicitly be asked if P(P) halts,
>> but it still gets the wrong answer.
>
> That must compute the mapping form their inputs to their own final
> accept / reject state.
>

You keep on missing that the mapping of a Foo Decider needs to match the
Foo mapping, or it isn't a Foo Decider, but some other decider.

Halting has a defined mapping. If you want to claim that mapping can't
be imposed on a decider, then you just aggreed to the conclusion of the
Theorem.

Your H is NOT a "Halting Decider" (per the Halting Problem) because the
mapping it computes doesn't match that of the Halting Function defined
by the Halting Problem.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32468&group=comp.theory#32468

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:00:20 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:00:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NCOFllVfPR27rVUg2jchUYGhm7xbO67aKWft4in2x1lRERVKbYB+v8BDORDN5lEGAcgp8SHjxlVlfsz!9TKt71BKdR0Hj6v7zIPCKkg7KCQRdwgr3sZJu/0dIW25M6P12WftDKMn3ULvWc6ugT78Ww/D5EU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3015
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 14:00 UTC

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>
> Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone
> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
> indeed undecidable.
>

Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a decider
thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.

> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two
> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined,
> are contradictory.
>

*The corrected halting problem definition*
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
input, whether the program *specified by this description* will finish
running, or continue to run forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]

<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32469&group=comp.theory#32469

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:31:40 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3349
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 14:31 UTC

On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>
>> Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
>> indeed undecidable.
>>
>
> Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a decider
> thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.
>
>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem.  The two
>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined,
>> are contradictory.
>>
>
> *The corrected halting problem definition*
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
> input, whether the program *specified by this description* will finish
> running,  or continue to run forever.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
>

WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.

You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or
of Truth.

The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that program
can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just fails to be
an answer to the Halting Problem.

Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just
defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs (like
none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they will
halt or not.

This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition.

You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]

<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32470&group=comp.theory#32470

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:42:09 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:42:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 205
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-a2iIul+Rfb97TUyTn2LyWULaBsal4PB1RgHPlacKygfHsuarrYtjuugZLldFk7qjiMGXBs57mbCSeqt!X1I1JjLUcrDY3S1fXL32UNti903F/bkWE8i9uoHztL1MpLmp3h4d5d54enbz97kPZrXtnYiDSJs=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 10516
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 14:42 UTC

On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do
>>>>>>>>> what the
>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with
>>>>> the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to
>>>>> strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind
>>>>> in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>
>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>
>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical
>>>> foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>>
>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of
>>>> the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking
>>>> for granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>>>
>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century
>>> ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and
>>> thought it not valuable)
>>>
>>
>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over everyone's
>> head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather than most
>> elegant bare essence.
>
> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding what
> Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper).
>
> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have intensly
> studied), this statement is solely from private notes that were
> published after his death. If he really believed in this statement as
> was sure of it, it would seem natural that he actually would of
> published it.
>
> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an error
> in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or he found his
> logic error and thus stopped believing in that statement.
>

Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before I
ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that his
reasoning is correct.

His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the
exact same view as mine:

'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-

True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)

There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of
language can possibly be true:
(1) It is stipulated to be true. // like an axiom
(2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1) or
the consequences of (2). // like sound deduction

Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its meaning
without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.

Empirical expressions of language also require sense data from the sense
organs to verify their truth.

This means that if there are no connected set of semantics meanings
(sound deduction) that make an analytical expression of language true
then then it cannot possibly be true unless it was stipulated as true.

The conclusion of Wittgenstein's analysis and mind is that if G is
unprovable in F then G is simply untrue in F.
Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)).

Even though F does meet the erroneous mathematical definition of
Incomplete(F) that F was ever construed as incomplete is simply
incorrect because it does not screen out expressions of language that
are simply not truth bearers.

Tarski made this same mistake with a much simply yet comparable proof to
the Gödel 1931 incompleteness theorem:
Tarski undefinability theorem 1936
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

"the sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory."

It is not that Tarski's metatheory is smarter than his theory.
It is that Tarski's x (the liar paradox) is not provable or true in his
theory because it is not a truth bearer in his theory in the same way
that Gödel's G is not a truth bearer in F.

> This make the "appeal" to him as an authority to rebut Godel incorrect,
> as he never stood as an authority to make such a claim, he just
> investigated it in private notes.
>
> Perhaps he realized that his argument to try to prove that Truth can be
> proven rested on the assumption of a definition that Truth was Provable
> and thus is just a circular argument.
>
> As I have put to you, PROVE that Truth must be Provable, or by your own
> logic the statement isn't true. We KNOW (if we have any intelligence)
> that there are Truths that we do not know about, so it is established
> that some truths are at least unknown for now. What is the basis for
> saying that there can't be an aspect that happens to be true even though
> we can not prove it?
>
>
>>
>>> You aseem to be refering to writings published post-humously about a
>>> his comments on a paper he hadn't yet actually read, and that he
>>> never repeated after actually reading the paper.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is very good basis for claiming your idea have to be right.
>>>
>>> You have shown ZERO understanding for the rules of logic, and that
>>> your opinions are basically worthless.
>>>
>>> If you want to try to ACTUAL PROVE something, based on REAL
>>> ESTABLISHED rules of logic, go ahead and give a try.
>>>
>>> Note, this means NOT just falling back to "the meaning of the words"
>>> except when you are actually QUOTING the accepted meaning of those
>>> words in the field and showing how they apply.
>>>
>>> I don't know if I have ever seen you put together a string of logic
>>> more that one or two steps before you go off on a "this must be true"
>>> side track, and never actually use any of the fundamental
>>> definitions. (You may quotes some of them, but then never actually
>>> use that definition in your nest step of the proof).
>>
>>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ]

<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32471&group=comp.theory#32471

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:53:53 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:53:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 75
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8wGp7kOmrBm79d1ovVAJ1Q1woYUYh7/GJNdsHwGU9WS1lsjKEz7FT35HOa3I9itNAEdZ/r1WSJBJuTD!dgws+YUb057jWl5TkPJCE7V47Sw7DJFC+9qCzl//JCexNQlKHm8YBZlvGMheZ60DGV9ncA3BMOc=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4856
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 14:53 UTC

On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>
>>> Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.
>>
>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem.  The two
>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined,
>>> are contradictory.
>>>
>>
>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>> an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will
>> finish running,  or continue to run forever.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>>
>
> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>

[ computer science is inconsistent ]
If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.

If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this input
actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a halt decider
must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of these two must go
or computer science remains inconsistent.

learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.

Like with religious people they tend to believe that the contradictions
are somehow resolved at a level higher than their current understanding.

> You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or
> of Truth.
>
> The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that program
> can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just fails to be
> an answer to the Halting Problem.
>
> Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just
> defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs (like
> none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they will
> halt or not.
>
> This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition.
>
> You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:12345
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor