Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.


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 [ Wittgenstein and I ]

<2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32472&group=comp.theory#32472

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.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 [
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 251
Message-ID: <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.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 10:59:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11752
X-Original-Bytes: 11618
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 14:59 UTC

On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,

That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.

>
> 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)

Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved
to be true.

If needs to be taken as an assumption, it is not something that IS
unconditionally true.

>
> 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

WRONG.

There are only two possible ways that they can be ANALYTICALLY true.

>
> 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.

And there are other truths besides Analytic Truth. That is implied by
the need of the adjective.

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

Nope, things can be empirically true even without the sense data.
Without the sense data they are not KNOWN to be true, but might be.

>
> 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.

WRONG. You are again confalating KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.

>
> 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)).

WRONG.

Makes the erroneous assumption that Truth requires proof, and becomes a
circular argument.

>
> 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.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32474&group=comp.theory#32474

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 10:32:39 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:32:39 -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 ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 309
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iNXPZPC9c85szqAW5t1qolJuJLlD+SRNhjI9KwI/unF7rBtgNMwOvJ960ki/cdXUK+NQd7PgNGXF/zr!wC5nkjgRiNFgqpalCIy3c1wHXuR+I69L/jOWZanVcQIdlHPLdlMcbVLzMVlYB4RQfQDwwxDwEHY=
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: 14500
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 15:32 UTC

On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>

No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his reasoning.

> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>
>>
>> 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)
>
> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved
> to be true.
>

That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it is
true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are both
true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
expressions of language.

> If needs to be taken as an assumption, it is not something that IS
> unconditionally true.
>
>>
>> There are only two possible ways that any ANALYTICALLY 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
>
> WRONG.
>
> There are only two possible ways that they can be ANALYTICALLY true.
>

Should I capitalize my use of ANALYTICALLY too so that you can see that
I already specified this? (I capitalized it, above)

>>
>> 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.
>
> And there are other truths besides Analytic Truth. That is implied by
> the need of the adjective.


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

<YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32475&group=comp.theory#32475

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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 [
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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.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 11:33:12 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7340
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 15:33 UTC

On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent,
unless you require that Halting be computable.

The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping of
a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting} based
on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite number
of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded number of
step.

Right? That is a very straight forward definition, and all Inputs have a
well defined and definite output. No Machine + Input can do both be
Halting and Non-Halting, or fail to be at least one of Halting or
Non-Halting. (Either then number of steps processed halts at a finite
number in a final state or counts to an unbounded number).

A Decider, always maps an input (in its domain) to an output (in its
range). The quesiton of the Halting Problem is does there exist a
Decider that its input -> output map matches the Halting Mapping.

Since a decider in this case is a Turing Machine, we know that its input
is a string in a given alphabet, so the question comes, can we alway
express a Turing Machine as a finite string representation, and the
answer to that is YES. (Maybe not in all alphabets, but there exist
alphabets that can express them).

This is because BY DEFINITON, a Turing Machine has a finite number of
states, and accepts a tape with a finite alphabet, thus we have a finite
number of states * a fintie number if symbols at the tape head giving a
finite number of cases specifying a finite state, a finite symbol, and a
binary tape motion. This is thus expressable in a finite string.

Thus we can ALWAYS convert the input to the Halting Mapping into some
input that FULLY EXPRESSES what the input is, thus there exists machines
with a range that expresses ALL possible Turing Machine + Input
possibilities. We actually knew that before from the existence of the
Universal Turing Machine, which takes as its input such a description.

Thus, if a given machine can't "understand" its input as such a machine
in some cases, the error is in that particular machine, not the
specification.

Now, yes, it is still possible that no machine can actually compute such
a mapping, but that is the question itself. Your error is you seem to be
presuming that the definition of a Halt Decider requires that such a
machine actually exist, which it doesn't.

It is the same as you idea that the Truth of a statement requires that a
Proof or Refutation exist, which it doesn't. (We are allowed to have
Unknown and even Unknowable Truths).

There is no conflict, just the fact that such a machine can not exist.

>
>> 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 ]( Prolog backchaining )

<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32477&group=comp.theory#32477

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 375
Message-ID: <e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.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 12:42:50 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 17332
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 16:42 UTC

On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>
>
> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his reasoning.
>
>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>>
>>>
>>> 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)
>>
>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved
>> to be true.
>>
>
> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it is
> true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are both
> true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
> deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
> expressions of language.

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.

The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that the
sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N even doesn't
eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of False. There is no possible
"non-answer", as math doesn't allow for such things.


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

<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32478&group=comp.theory#32478

 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 11:52:53 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 11:52:53 -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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 163
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Qldk3RdJI/ZcWTd+oQhvnvkvfDMRjlyYSRpzlXGx7D7LtDJ0uvXjpIfw2nOOTNUh2nmcSxmnubHdlPH!IId1v1JxD3oVZH1Z73hq45nf4m90Kj4JuYjwbDJB3aU/W844+RXy0FWnWu3WV1lZFc93K0g/k5I=
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: 9345
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 16:52 UTC

On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent,
> unless you require that Halting be computable.
>

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
criteria are incorrect.

> The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping of
> a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting} based
> on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite number
> of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded number of
> step.
>

It must be the actual behavior actually specified by the inputs and
cannot be the behavior specified by non-inputs unless this behavior is
identical to the behavior of the inputs.

It has previously simply always been (incorrectly) assumed to be the
case that the behavior specified by the inputs cannot possibly diverge
from the behavior of their direct execution.

In those cases where the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P)
is not identical to the behavior of the direct execution of P(P) the
definition of the halting criteria directly contradicts the definition
of a decider and the definition of a computation, thus invalidating it.

> Right? That is a very straight forward definition, and all Inputs have a
> well defined and definite output. No Machine + Input can do both be
> Halting and Non-Halting, or fail to be at least one of Halting or
> Non-Halting. (Either then number of steps processed halts at a finite
> number in a final state or counts to an unbounded number).
>
> A Decider, always maps an input (in its domain) to an output (in its
> range). The quesiton of the Halting Problem is does there exist a
> Decider that its input -> output map matches the Halting Mapping.
>
> Since a decider in this case is a Turing Machine, we know that its input
> is a string in a given alphabet, so the question comes, can we alway
> express a Turing Machine as a finite string representation, and the
> answer to that is YES. (Maybe not in all alphabets, but there exist
> alphabets that can express them).
>
> This is because BY DEFINITON, a Turing Machine has a finite number of
> states, and accepts a tape with a finite alphabet, thus we have a finite
> number of states * a fintie number if symbols at the tape head giving a
> finite number of cases specifying a finite state, a finite symbol, and a
> binary tape motion. This is thus expressable in a finite string.
>
> Thus we can ALWAYS convert the input to the Halting Mapping into some
> input that FULLY EXPRESSES what the input is, thus there exists machines
> with a range that expresses ALL possible Turing Machine + Input
> possibilities. We actually knew that before from the existence of the
> Universal Turing Machine, which takes as its input such a description.
>
> Thus, if a given machine can't "understand" its input as such a machine
> in some cases, the error is in that particular machine, not the
> specification.
>
> Now, yes, it is still possible that no machine can actually compute such
> a mapping, but that is the question itself. Your error is you seem to be
> presuming that the definition of a Halt Decider requires that such a
> machine actually exist, which it doesn't.
>
> It is the same as you idea that the Truth of a statement requires that a
> Proof or Refutation exist, which it doesn't. (We are allowed to have
> Unknown and even Unknowable Truths).
>
> There is no conflict, just the fact that such a machine can not exist.
>
>>
>>> 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

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

<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32482&group=comp.theory#32482

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 12:25:12 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:25:12 -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 ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 397
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hnvLS9uUF4xmgIht+Bb/m37XDXPRVHkUxfK2Y5lG4YBY4abUzs0WxUqHiRO99WWnTGqzchYY2ynx542!fV5InweulNitXKj3cn8b6QafZrMvtKxRY2TIHaoydKLRj4I+2uRXLd7vvX+GtUdHI0uM6dnCOlQ=
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: 18646
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 17:25 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>
>>
>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>> reasoning.
>>
>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>
>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>> proved to be true.
>>>
>>
>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it
>> is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are
>> both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
>> deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
>> expressions of language.
>
> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32491&group=comp.theory#32491

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!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!fx97.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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.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 16:18:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10507
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 20:18 UTC

On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>> reasoning.
>>>
>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it
>>> is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are
>>> both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
>>> deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
>>> expressions of language.
>>
>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>
>
> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk
> about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32492&group=comp.theory#32492

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 16:02:59 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:02:58 -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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 226
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1kqW+inJli6t2uzsV/Dtlq2zLvRiJvXk4QnXsTRcD2lfxmbLbfEVHeRedGxEicth+fsJYiy5q1Koi0v!aP431n9KQixcZROCJRDq1b8HGyEcKLrQVvpWyDaVsadvOZvEByV+6bZRgTb4AaqtwdySQnAdHz0=
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: 11804
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:02 UTC

On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>> reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that
>>>> it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that
>>>> are both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true
>>>> (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
>>>> expressions of language.
>>>
>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>
>>
>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.
>
> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>
> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical
> proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32494&group=comp.theory#32494

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 255
Message-ID: <IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.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 17:15:19 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12723
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:15 UTC

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that
>>>>> it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that
>>>>> are both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true
>>>>> (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other
>>>>> true expressions of language.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.
>>
>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>
>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
>> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>
>
> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>
>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>
>
> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is
> excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense
> organs.
>


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

<J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32496&group=comp.theory#32496

 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!peer01.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 [
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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@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: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:28:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7653
X-Original-Bytes: 7520
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:28 UTC

On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
> corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
> computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
> criteria are incorrect.

You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as
a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of
a decider. In fact, the question is "Is the Halting Function
Commputable?" This means that if the definition of the Halting Criteria
is incompatible with making a computation from it, we get the simple
answer of "No, the Halting Function is not computable"

You don't seem to understnad that not all functions are computatable,
and that for those that answer to the question of can you make a Turing
Machine compute them is just "No".

>
>> The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping
>> of a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting}
>> based on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite
>> number of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded
>> number of step.
>>
>
> It must be the actual behavior actually specified by the inputs and
> cannot be the behavior specified by non-inputs unless this behavior is
> identical to the behavior of the inputs.

Right, and since the input specifies all the details of the Turing
Machine in question, the "behavior" of that input relates to that machine.

That IS the input, not a non-input. In fact, YOUR example asks about a
non-input, as P calls H which isn't provided in the input, and thus it
is invalid for your H to answer about that behavior.

>
> It has previously simply always been (incorrectly) assumed to be the
> case that the behavior specified by the inputs cannot possibly diverge
> from the behavior of their direct execution.

Because BY DEFINITION, it CAN'T, or the decider doesn't meet the
requriements.

>
> In those cases where the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P)
> is not identical to the behavior of the direct execution of P(P) the
> definition of the halting criteria directly contradicts the definition
> of a decider and the definition of a computation, thus invalidating it.

Nope, it proves that your H fails to meet the requriements. After all,
the input DOES specify the behavior being asked about, if it was
constructed correctly as a representation of the machine in question.

Thus any error is on the decider or the person who designed it and the
representation specification.

Note, DEFINITIONS CAN NOT BE INVALID.

There is no contradiction between the definition of a decider and the
Halting Problem, only the fact that no decider can exist that meets the
requirements

If you can't handle that, then that is YOUR problem, not the logic systems.

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

<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32499&group=comp.theory#32499

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 16:48:28 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:48:28 -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 ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 285
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-cC8DOGtSQCu/cfHssbwWGfqeEGoFdng/7b+DYWIl1i/FcQ9ytmtAU1JnQ/9/ELwOmgKLfcpDaaHOUJD!TJKyzepHV5bxPv4O63rI9ARHSOy2mg2n/SllD4lbvW0ML29Uzgvc8sMkxinUAO4MdRZO5nXBI1E=
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: 14331
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:48 UTC

On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that
>>>>>> it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language
>>>>>> that are both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be
>>>>>> true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to
>>>>>> other true expressions of language.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>>>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.
>>>
>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>
>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
>>> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>
>>
>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>
>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>
>>
>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that
>> is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the
>> sense organs.
>>
>
> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>
>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in
>>> the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically
>>> True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth
>>> Bearer.
>>>
>>
>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings
>> proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>
>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be
>> found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search
>> to find.
>
> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't
> have a Proof.
>


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

<a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32500&group=comp.theory#32500

 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 16:53:26 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:53:26 -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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 154
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-scSGBpWOI6izlcewIYPGaRGuBPcJlAHI0//tmEVpFIeVitGQaSzL/MxRxi07FbLHj8tcVWJB6U6z4Ov!45w2UcVNgJ9IuHkEgnMWq4uOA2RBleUWhRtmjm4miUXAAA/nJDr5di6Y1cgiK+fPkxLGzzhtVNE=
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: 8666
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:53 UTC

On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>>
>>
>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
>> corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
>> computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
>> criteria are incorrect.
>
> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as
> a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of
> a decider.

So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in computer
science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that can compute
the length of a finite string in the same way that there is no
non-computation that can compute halting.

> In fact, the question is "Is the Halting Function
> Commputable?" This means that if the definition of the Halting Criteria
> is incompatible with making a computation from it, we get the simple
> answer of "No, the Halting Function is not computable"
>
> You don't seem to understnad that not all functions are computatable,
> and that for those that answer to the question of can you make a Turing
> Machine compute them is just "No".
>
>>
>>> The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping
>>> of a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> { Halting, Non-Halting}
>>> based on if the Turing Machine will reach a final state in any finite
>>> number of steps, or never reach such a final state after an unbounded
>>> number of step.
>>>
>>
>> It must be the actual behavior actually specified by the inputs and
>> cannot be the behavior specified by non-inputs unless this behavior is
>> identical to the behavior of the inputs.
>
> Right, and since the input specifies all the details of the Turing
> Machine in question, the "behavior" of that input relates to that machine.
>
> That IS the input, not a non-input. In fact, YOUR example asks about a
> non-input, as P calls H which isn't provided in the input, and thus it
> is invalid for your H to answer about that behavior.
>
>
>>
>> It has previously simply always been (incorrectly) assumed to be the
>> case that the behavior specified by the inputs cannot possibly diverge
>> from the behavior of their direct execution.
>
> Because BY DEFINITION, it CAN'T, or the decider doesn't meet the
> requriements.
>
>>
>> In those cases where the actual behavior of the actual input to H(P,P)
>> is not identical to the behavior of the direct execution of P(P) the
>> definition of the halting criteria directly contradicts the definition
>> of a decider and the definition of a computation, thus invalidating it.
>
> Nope, it proves that your H fails to meet the requriements. After all,
> the input DOES specify the behavior being asked about, if it was
> constructed correctly as a representation of the machine in question.
>
> Thus any error is on the decider or the person who designed it and the
> representation specification.
>
> Note, DEFINITIONS CAN NOT BE INVALID.
>
> There is no contradiction between the definition of a decider and the
> Halting Problem, only the fact that no decider can exist that meets the
> requirements
>
> If you can't handle that, then that is YOUR problem, not the logic systems.

--
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 [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32504&group=comp.theory#32504

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.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 18:50:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15189
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 22:50 UTC

On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof
>>>>>>> that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of
>>>>>>> language that are both true and neither stipulated as true or
>>>>>>> proven to be true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic
>>>>>>> connections to other true expressions of language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>>>>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
>>>> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>
>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that
>>> is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the
>>> sense organs.
>>>
>>
>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>
>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in
>>>> the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically
>>>> True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth
>>>> Bearer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings
>>> proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>
>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can
>>> be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite
>>> search to find.
>>
>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>> don't have a Proof.
>>
>
> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology.
> When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not
> exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the
> expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then
> it is still true.


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

<vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32505&group=comp.theory#32505

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.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 [ 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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad> <27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad> <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad> <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.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 18:56:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5975
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 22:56 UTC

On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return
>>> the corresponding output.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
>>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of
>>> a computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
>>> criteria are incorrect.
>>
>> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined
>> as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the
>> definition of a decider.
>
> So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in computer
> science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that can compute
> the length of a finite string in the same way that there is no
> non-computation that can compute halting.

Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box of
oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category error
proving you don't know what you are talking about.

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

<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32507&group=comp.theory#32507

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!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: Sun, 15 May 2022 00:20:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <87v8u7snuk.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>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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="a8e0c8a37bf8278663460d3c2ecea76e";
logging-data="11691"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pfkgZEIODXr6R488jWbW/CTzkU8GriFU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qc8P5CZSjVsUSRXOdLbcYkhsxss=
sha1:uK7WOR+aOnvI/F73uUVdC9eBU10=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.1c421d013f316367dffe.20220515002035BST.87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:20 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> 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.

So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? If so,
you need to get on with it. That's the function the world cares about.
That's the function that will make you famous. H isn't it, and no one
cares about whatever it is that H is deciding.

> We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition...

The fact that H is deciding something else, does not mean that D can't
also exist. Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == true
if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise or there can't be. Of
course you have been playing this game long enough to know that you must
never say which you believe to be the case!

--
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 [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32509&group=comp.theory#32509

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 18:21:04 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:21:04 -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 ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 345
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4BGI03D/+2msmX+9j7ScW2Sjx9bsgG+BaS9AwikK8dGtqCNGDQeow9vcFmuYhJTp+uw6obLb1HlNFan!knwV7I8cDmf4cXjlUZftvlZwj3xVLpf0/EK4yCuTyQeC2KfdxPpZv10ggFgBUC84OdbDAclUQ0M=
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: 16899
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:21 UTC

On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof
>>>>>>>> that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of
>>>>>>>> language that are both true and neither stipulated as true or
>>>>>>>> proven to be true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic
>>>>>>>> connections to other true expressions of language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I
>>>>>> ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking
>>>>>> about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because
>>>>> you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>>
>>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that
>>>> is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the
>>>> sense organs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>>
>>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in
>>>>> the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically
>>>>> True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a
>>>>> Truth Bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic
>>>> meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can
>>>> be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite
>>>> search to find.
>>>
>>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>>> don't have a Proof.
>>>
>>
>> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology.
>> When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not
>> exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then
>> the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to
>> find then it is still true.
>
> So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or
> expressable?
>
> That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically
>>>>> True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't
>>>>> a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically
>>>>> True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of
>>>>> KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or
>>>>> KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you
>>>>> are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A
>>>>> proper student of the field understands the difference, but you
>>>>> don't seem to be able to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known".
>>>>> A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are
>>>>> True that are outside knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that
>>>>>>> the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N even
>>>>>>> doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of False. There
>>>>>>> is no possible "non-answer", as math doesn't allow for such things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot
>>>>>> be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected
>>>>>> set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they
>>>>>> cannot be found in finite time.
>>>>>
>>>>> But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at
>>>>> least by the normal definitions of a proof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?
>>
>> So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and
>> inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.
>
> So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the
> fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic
> rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a
> derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.


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

<kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32510&group=comp.theory#32510

 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: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:25:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:25:03 -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>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-m6Dhw/SwLr3kyCg9XahFVmZOX8mjAtuMD20r/qtCdId4GmYQrTqbo5zSh8xdhXBWYzQjHrtU/o5+E17!yEXblYA5zGjq4OOjoPx6weos2B1Ym1FKYo1FtN6jghtOFyp9YtoRVCvS+RwZCCDVM7UX5WDnKCI=
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: 3511
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:25 UTC

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the length
of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt status of a
non-input.

The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it must
be about the computations that inputs specify.

> If so,
> you need to get on with it. That's the function the world cares about.
> That's the function that will make you famous. H isn't it, and no one
> cares about whatever it is that H is deciding.
>
>> We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition...
>
> The fact that H is deciding something else, does not mean that D can't
> also exist. Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == true
> if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise or there can't be. Of
> course you have been playing this game long enough to know that you must
> never say which you believe to be the case!
>

--
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 [ computer science is inconsistent ]

<Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32513&group=comp.theory#32513

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:33:09 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:33:09 -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 [
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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
<a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 106
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KOOCSR/qjkbWnAsge4EaJBTO8uqymHjm/MnVlem+0TCsc9eFL3dGGyArcF3VxSKGJlTi2FC6KRQEH7h!a5YXEZ2fDjEdgfwIi4i0idcDDYZR85Xa/w2MXDwLYVbYZ4cnqIXE13Z6xPsivmaJu7BDYwBXJgU=
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: 6742
X-Received-Bytes: 6833
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:33 UTC

On 5/14/2022 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>>>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return
>>>> the corresponding output.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>
>>>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
>>>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of
>>>> a computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
>>>> criteria are incorrect.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined
>>> as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the
>>> definition of a decider.
>>
>> So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in
>> computer science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that
>> can compute the length of a finite string in the same way that there
>> is no non-computation that can compute halting.
>
> Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box of
> oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category error
> proving you don't know what you are talking about.

In this same way requiring a non-computation to compute is an incorrect
problem definition.

--
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 [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32516&group=comp.theory#32516

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 389
Message-ID: <BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.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 19:52:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 18906
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:52 UTC

On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw
>>>>>>>>> his reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to
>>>>>>>>>> be proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof
>>>>>>>>> that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of
>>>>>>>>> language that are both true and neither stipulated as true or
>>>>>>>>> proven to be true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic
>>>>>>>>> connections to other true expressions of language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I
>>>>>>> ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking
>>>>>>> about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because
>>>>>> you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>>>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except
>>>>> that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data
>>>>> from the sense organs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least
>>>>>> in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically
>>>>>> True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a
>>>>>> Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic
>>>>> meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can
>>>>> be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite
>>>>> search to find.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>>>> don't have a Proof.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology.
>>> When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not
>>> exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then
>>> the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to
>>> find then it is still true.
>>
>> So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or
>> expressable?
>>
>> That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically
>>>>>> True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement
>>>>>> isn't a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically
>>>>>> True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of
>>>>>> KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or
>>>>>> KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you
>>>>>> are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A
>>>>>> proper student of the field understands the difference, but you
>>>>>> don't seem to be able to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known".
>>>>>> A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are
>>>>>> True that are outside knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that
>>>>>>>> the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N
>>>>>>>> even doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of False.
>>>>>>>> There is no possible "non-answer", as math doesn't allow for
>>>>>>>> such things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot
>>>>>>> be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected
>>>>>>> set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they
>>>>>>> cannot be found in finite time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at
>>>>>> least by the normal definitions of a proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?
>>>
>>> So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and
>>> inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.
>>
>> So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the
>> fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic
>> rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a
>> derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.
>
> We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true
> unless and until:
> (1) It has been stipulated to be true.
>
> (2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of
> language that have been stipulated to be true.
> This is the same system that Prolog uses.


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

<BhXfK.1975$NMxb.1577@fx02.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32517&group=comp.theory#32517

 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!fx02.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 [
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$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
<a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <BhXfK.1975$NMxb.1577@fx02.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 19:53:06 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6538
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:53 UTC

On 5/14/22 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>>>>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in
>>>>> computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized
>>>>> analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a
>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
>>>>> job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it
>>>>> can return the corresponding output.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
>>>>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition
>>>>> of a computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the
>>>>> halting criteria are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT
>>>> defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the
>>>> definition of a decider.
>>>
>>> So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in
>>> computer science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that
>>> can compute the length of a finite string in the same way that there
>>> is no non-computation that can compute halting.
>>
>> Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box
>> of oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category
>> error proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> In this same way requiring a non-computation to compute is an incorrect
> problem definition.
>

Nope, just you making Herring in Red sauce.

You are just proving your ignorance.

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

<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32525&group=comp.theory#32525

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 23:07:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:07:23 -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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 296
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sNTnISAPDFZZe8evGP1cApIj7Iv9Vq7P/v1m87ccVbnITh60hgDfpK+hkX59wApRE0FQY8PQ4i7+FEp!JLlNc0CBmGkZ7+FlZi/ulGsFDPlNYPPWDNCuYH6ple8gBmviuIjCUYp4pmOGqR86BYqgQ9zNBJ4=
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: 15866
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:07 UTC

On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with
>>>>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw
>>>>>>>>>> his reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to
>>>>>>>>>>> be proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof
>>>>>>>>>> that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of
>>>>>>>>>> language that are both true and neither stipulated as true or
>>>>>>>>>> proven to be true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic
>>>>>>>>>> connections to other true expressions of language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I
>>>>>>>> ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking
>>>>>>>> about that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because
>>>>>>> you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>>>>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except
>>>>>> that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data
>>>>>> from the sense organs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least
>>>>>>> in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be
>>>>>>> "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has
>>>>>>> ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic
>>>>>> meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set
>>>>>> can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an
>>>>>> infinite search to find.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>>>>> don't have a Proof.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology.
>>>> When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not
>>>> exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then
>>>> the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to
>>>> find then it is still true.
>>>
>>> So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or
>>> expressable?
>>>
>>> That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically
>>>>>>> True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement
>>>>>>> isn't a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also, There are true statements that are neither
>>>>>>> Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions
>>>>>>> made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing
>>>>>>> KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like
>>>>>>> describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth,
>>>>>>> but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the
>>>>>>> difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is
>>>>>>> "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things
>>>>>>> that are True that are outside knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that
>>>>>>>>> the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N
>>>>>>>>> even doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of False.
>>>>>>>>> There is no possible "non-answer", as math doesn't allow for
>>>>>>>>> such things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer
>>>>>>>> cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a
>>>>>>>> connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false
>>>>>>>> even if they cannot be found in finite time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at
>>>>>>> least by the normal definitions of a proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?
>>>>
>>>> So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and
>>>> inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the
>>>> art.
>>>
>>> So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the
>>> fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic
>>> rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a
>>> derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.
>>
>> We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as
>> true unless and until:
>> (1) It has been stipulated to be true.
>>
>> (2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of
>> language that have been stipulated to be true.
>> This is the same system that Prolog uses.
>
> Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True", yes,
> but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it True we can
> not use it to actually directly prove something else, but it can be True).
>
> You seem to be saying that the Collatz conjecture can not have a Truth
> Value, because it has not been proven, even though it can be proven that
> it must be either True of False?
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32534&group=comp.theory#32534

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.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 [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 305
Message-ID: <_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.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: Sun, 15 May 2022 07:16:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 16116
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 May 2022 11:16 UTC

On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw
>>>>>>>>>>> his reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof
>>>>>>>>>>> that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of
>>>>>>>>>>> language that are both true and neither stipulated as true or
>>>>>>>>>>> proven to be true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic
>>>>>>>>>>> connections to other true expressions of language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I
>>>>>>>>> ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not
>>>>>>>>> talking about that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because
>>>>>>>> you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>>>>>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>>>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except
>>>>>>> that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data
>>>>>>> from the sense organs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least
>>>>>>>> in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be
>>>>>>>> "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has
>>>>>>>> ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic
>>>>>>> meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set
>>>>>>> can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an
>>>>>>> infinite search to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>>>>>> don't have a Proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on
>>>>> terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings
>>>>> this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does
>>>>> not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet
>>>>> is impossible to find then it is still true.
>>>>
>>>> So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable
>>>> or expressable?
>>>>
>>>> That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically
>>>>>>>> True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement
>>>>>>>> isn't a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, There are true statements that are neither
>>>>>>>> Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions
>>>>>>>> made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing
>>>>>>>> KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like
>>>>>>>> describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying
>>>>>>>> Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands
>>>>>>>> the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is
>>>>>>>> "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things
>>>>>>>> that are True that are outside knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that
>>>>>>>>>> the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N
>>>>>>>>>> even doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of False.
>>>>>>>>>> There is no possible "non-answer", as math doesn't allow for
>>>>>>>>>> such things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer
>>>>>>>>> cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a
>>>>>>>>> connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false
>>>>>>>>> even if they cannot be found in finite time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof,
>>>>>>>> at least by the normal definitions of a proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from
>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?
>>>>>
>>>>> So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence
>>>>> and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of
>>>>> the art.
>>>>
>>>> So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the
>>>> fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic
>>>> rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a
>>>> derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.
>>>
>>> We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as
>>> true unless and until:
>>> (1) It has been stipulated to be true.
>>>
>>> (2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of
>>> language that have been stipulated to be true.
>>> This is the same system that Prolog uses.
>>
>> Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True",
>> yes, but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it True
>> we can not use it to actually directly prove something else, but it
>> can be True).
>>
>> You seem to be saying that the Collatz conjecture can not have a Truth
>> Value, because it has not been proven, even though it can be proven
>> that it must be either True of False?
>>
>
> It can only be declared as having an unknown truth value.
>
>


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32538&group=comp.theory#32538

 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: Sun, 15 May 2022 13:18:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <87pmkfrnto.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>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_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="a8e0c8a37bf8278663460d3c2ecea76e";
logging-data="27402"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fuR/5AMtV79fFb2E5NZmHTlIL9Yu5oLM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ajR+phVp9OmHPvghOvnH7DHQO6s=
sha1:HTghsD6of0XHsdJOlBRMqp8SK2g=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.1acf5e3fc3f67f0e4027.20220515131843BST.87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sun, 15 May 2022 12:18 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>
> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
> status of a non-input.
>
> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
> must be about the computations that inputs specify.

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).
That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard
to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your
H is not interesting.

Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so
limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called with
the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you
should probably stop wasting time on your H.

Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only
of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or
there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research" you
won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an
important algorithm!

--
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 ]

<p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32552&group=comp.theory#32552

 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: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:02:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:02:47 -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> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 65
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JQRnOvN1qj39TT57ikW2xqCRbubEkzKMthypdSt+DtEpswHh5cStapl7olZzL9IqSoSP5kuXIqS90Eg!Zyz3n346MzroT9lKGnBj88Iaae1U/n2IN0TQ9aRFzh36rbxfEO2Mlo8cQlbK8TutLUfGsg/MRSU=
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: 4525
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 03:02 UTC

On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
>>> D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?
>>
>> In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the
>> length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt
>> status of a non-input.
>>
>> The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it
>> must be about the computations that inputs specify.
>
> The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

> That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard
> to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your
> H is not interesting.
>
> Your H is boring because "the computations that input specify" are so
> limited. Many simple computations consisting of one pointer called with
> the other as an argument can't be specified at all (apparently) so you
> should probably stop wasting time on your H.
>
> Either there can be a function D such that D(X,Y) == false if and only
> of the computation, X(Y), specified by those "inputs" does not halt, or
> there can't be. But even after 18 years of what you call "research" you
> won't dare hazard a guess about the possible existence of such an
> important algorithm!

You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to
"compute" on non-computation.

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

--
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 [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32554&group=comp.theory#32554

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:11:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:11:47 -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 ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_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$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 325
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pSiYgmLvsdo/TaNKsnX0nd1jYPdTQufZEuCjoK3gU8sIs50wlUOudUJmmv5g1997DrhXnFQlr/GWAOG!q1Web3VYuQuMfQIN/sPosAi1W+7GMJnXYgvG5IKMqsFVn0W39J/wVmalq6hPvR7P2xlF1yFn3Ro=
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: 17291
X-Received-Bytes: 17384
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 03:11 UTC

On 5/15/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw
>>>>>>>>>>>> his reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> proof that it is true. There are no categories of
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language that are both true and neither
>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound deduction) on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of semantic connections to other true expressions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I
>>>>>>>>>> ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not
>>>>>>>>>> talking about that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F,
>>>>>>>>> because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can
>>>>>>>>> show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it
>>>>>>>>> actually is True.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>>>>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except
>>>>>>>> that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data
>>>>>>>> from the sense organs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it
>>>>>>> is)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at
>>>>>>>>> least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be
>>>>>>>>> "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has
>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic
>>>>>>>> meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set
>>>>>>>> can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an
>>>>>>>> infinite search to find.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result,
>>>>>>> you don't have a Proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on
>>>>>> terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings
>>>>>> this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does
>>>>>> not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet
>>>>>> is impossible to find then it is still true.
>>>>>
>>>>> So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable
>>>>> or expressable?
>>>>>
>>>>> That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically
>>>>>>>>> True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement
>>>>>>>>> isn't a Truth Bearer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note also, There are true statements that are neither
>>>>>>>>> Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions
>>>>>>>>> made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing
>>>>>>>>> KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like
>>>>>>>>> describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying
>>>>>>>>> Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands
>>>>>>>>> the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is
>>>>>>>>> "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things
>>>>>>>>> that are True that are outside knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such
>>>>>>>>>>> that the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2
>>>>>>>>>>> for N even doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of
>>>>>>>>>>> False. There is no possible "non-answer", as math doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> allow for such things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer
>>>>>>>>>> cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a
>>>>>>>>>> connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false
>>>>>>>>>> even if they cannot be found in finite time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof,
>>>>>>>>> at least by the normal definitions of a proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from
>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence
>>>>>> and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms
>>>>>> of the art.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the
>>>>> fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core
>>>>> Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change
>>>>> them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as
>>>> true unless and until:
>>>> (1) It has been stipulated to be true.
>>>>
>>>> (2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions
>>>> of language that have been stipulated to be true.
>>>> This is the same system that Prolog uses.
>>>
>>> Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True",
>>> yes, but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it True
>>> we can not use it to actually directly prove something else, but it
>>> can be True).
>>>
>>> You seem to be saying that the Collatz conjecture can not have a
>>> Truth Value, because it has not been proven, even though it can be
>>> proven that it must be either True of False?
>>>
>>
>> It can only be declared as having an unknown truth value.
>>
>>
>
> Which means it HAS a truth value of True or False but we don't know which.
>
> That is VERY difffernt then it having neither, which is what you have
> been claimiing (or at least what your words meant).
>


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:12345
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor