On 2/18/2022 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Validity and Soundness
>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>
>>>> cows are not dogs
>>>> cows are not airplanes
>>>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>>>
>>>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>>>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>>>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>>>>
>>>> The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid
>>>> inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before
>>>> logic diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically
>>>> related is required).
>>>>
>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>> form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what does this actual achieve? (except making it harder to do
>>> things).
>>>
>>
>> It defines the notion of correct reasoning and realigns logic with
>> Aristotle's syllogism requiring a semantic connection between the
>> premises and conclusion.
>
> Which does WHAT, ACTUALLY?
>
> What useful statement does this allow you to prove, or false premise it
> allows you to keep from proving.
>
>
>>
>> It over-rides and supersedes the classical logic definition of logical
>> entailment to make the word "proven" regain its common meaning.
>
> No, it doesn't. since the need to prove your arguement means that the
> conclusion actually has been proven.
>
> I suppose the one advantage would be it would disallow arguements based
> on always false premises, which can then 'prove' false conclusions, but
> that arguement can't actually be used anyway (even though you try).
>
>>
>> We can no longer correctly say that "butterflies have wings" is
>> "proven" on the basis that "cows are not dogs" and "cows are not
>> airplanes".
>> The principle of explosion is also cancelled by this change.
>>
>
> Except that you never could say that, all you could say is that
> butterflys have wings because it has been proven that since caows are
> not dogs and cows are not airplains together are sufficient to show that
> butterflies have wings. Which is true,

Although it is true that butterflies have wings it is incorrect to
conclude this entirely on the basis that cows are not dogs and cows are
not airplanes.

That is why my correction to the definition of a valid argument is
required.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just don't have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal cancer with little time left. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate I have no idea why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness theorem down to a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple sentence. Try and find a single error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Truth can only be something that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of statements that must either be True
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of False, there is no possible middle ground,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but these statements have not been shown to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be provable or disprovable. An example of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true until after it has been proven. There are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only two ways to determine if an analytical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by sound deduction that is ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom you need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "given" in geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say that a cat is the windows of an office
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building you are simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to something wrong. That violates the rules of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by virtue of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet still requires true preserving operations to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied on the basis of semantic relevance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world agrees is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unqualified to discuss it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct reasoning is based.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any
>>>>>>>>>>>> less peripheral.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
>>>>>>>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth
>>>>>>>>>>> used in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field,
>>>>>>>>>>> which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses, because
>>>>>>>>>>> it has inhereted it from its
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) The halting problem proofs,
>>>>>>>>>> (b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>>>>> (c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
>>>>>>>>>> (d) The liar paradox
>>>>>>>>>> all suffer from the same foundational error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely
>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT sort of issue,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of
>>>>>>>>>> true statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then
>>>>>>>>>> all four of the above examples lose their basis and cease to
>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept
>>>>>>>>> that you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something
>>>>>>>>> can be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be
>>>>>>>>> true, you can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language
>>>>>>>> is only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that
>>>>>>>> it is true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your
>>>>>>> interpreation of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of
>>>>>>> Mathematics, (and related logic families) as they allow for a
>>>>>>> statement to be True without needing to be connected to a proof.
>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>> Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical
>>>>>> expression is true aside from its proof that it is true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can
>>>>> bifurcate on that knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
>>>> That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
>>>> otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Godel sentence is more complicated then that. In essence the
>>> Godel sentence says the Godel sentence is can not be proven to be
>>> true (without directly referencing th Godel sentence).
>>>
>>> Either the sentence is True, then it can not be actually PROVEN true
>>> in the system, since the sentence states, indirectly, that it is
>>> unprovable. (The connection of the statement to itself is outside the
>>> reach of the algerbra in question).
>>>
>>> Thus, if it IS true, it must be unprovable.
>>
>> That is exactly the same as the liar paradox:
>
> No, it isn't.
>>
>> This sentence is not true. (Is indeed not true).
>> This sentence cannot be proven. (Is indeed unprovable).
>
> The key is that the liar paradox directly refers to the sentence in
> question.
>
> The Godel sentence doesn't, it refers to the sentence by reference to
> properties that can't be directly mapped within the algerbra, but can
> with some meta-analysis. You don't seem to understand the difference.
>
> This is just like the fact that H^ does NOT have any self-reference in
> it, the machine H^ does absolutely nothing to refer to itself, (and
> thus, the algorithm in H/H^ can't base anything on there being a
> self-reference)
>
> THe key is that H^ can take any machines description as its input, so we
> can just happen to give it the representation of itself. This is also
> NOT a self-reference, the input doesn't somehow encode the statement
> 'look at yourself', it just happens to match the machine it is being
> given to.
>
>
>>
>> Gödel expressly said that the liar paradox can be used to derive his
>> same result, directly quoted on page 7:
>
> Right, he started with the basis of the liar's paradox, but by changing
> how it refers to itself, it removes the issue. Note also, Not Provable
> is not the same as If False (except by your faulty logic).
>

On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>
>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>> axioms.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> Validity and Soundness
> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
> nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>
> cows are not dogs
> cows are not airplanes
> ∴ butterflies have wings
>
> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is totally
> unrelated to its premises.

You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you think
you are pointing to exists only in your head.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>
>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>
> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
> axioms.

!!!!!!!WTF!!!!

On 2/18/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just don't have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal cancer with little time left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs makes these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank and looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness theorem down to a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple sentence. Try and find a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Truth can only be something that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of statements that must either be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True of False, there is no possible middle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown to be provable or disprovable. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as true until after it has been proven. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only two ways to determine if an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an axiom that assigned the value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a axiom you need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "given" in geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say that a cat is the windows of an office
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building you are simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially to something wrong. That violates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by virtue of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet still requires true preserving operations to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied on the basis of semantic relevance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole world agrees is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unqualified to discuss it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which correct reasoning is based.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field. That is useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less peripheral.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
>>>>>>>>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> used in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses, because
>>>>>>>>>>>> it has inhereted it from its
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) The halting problem proofs,
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
>>>>>>>>>>> (d) The liar paradox
>>>>>>>>>>> all suffer from the same foundational error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely
>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT sort of issue,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of
>>>>>>>>>>> true statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then
>>>>>>>>>>> all four of the above examples lose their basis and cease to
>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept
>>>>>>>>>> that you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something
>>>>>>>>>> can be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to
>>>>>>>>>> be true, you can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language
>>>>>>>>> is only true when a connected set of true expressions prove
>>>>>>>>> that it is true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> co-exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your
>>>>>>>> interpreation of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of
>>>>>>>> Mathematics, (and related logic families) as they allow for a
>>>>>>>> statement to be True without needing to be connected to a proof.
>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>> Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical
>>>>>>> expression is true aside from its proof that it is true?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can
>>>>>> bifurcate on that knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
>>>>> That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
>>>>> otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Godel sentence is more complicated then that. In essence the
>>>> Godel sentence says the Godel sentence is can not be proven to be
>>>> true (without directly referencing th Godel sentence).
>>>>
>>>> Either the sentence is True, then it can not be actually PROVEN true
>>>> in the system, since the sentence states, indirectly, that it is
>>>> unprovable. (The connection of the statement to itself is outside
>>>> the reach of the algerbra in question).
>>>>
>>>> Thus, if it IS true, it must be unprovable.
>>>
>>> That is exactly the same as the liar paradox:
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>>>
>>> This sentence is not true. (Is indeed not true).
>>> This sentence cannot be proven. (Is indeed unprovable).
>>
>> The key is that the liar paradox directly refers to the sentence in
>> question.
>>
>> The Godel sentence doesn't, it refers to the sentence by reference to
>> properties that can't be directly mapped within the algerbra, but can
>> with some meta-analysis. You don't seem to understand the difference.
>>
>> This is just like the fact that H^ does NOT have any self-reference in
>> it, the machine H^ does absolutely nothing to refer to itself, (and
>> thus, the algorithm in H/H^ can't base anything on there being a
>> self-reference)
>>
>> THe key is that H^ can take any machines description as its input, so
>> we can just happen to give it the representation of itself. This is
>> also NOT a self-reference, the input doesn't somehow encode the
>> statement 'look at yourself', it just happens to match the machine it
>> is being given to.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Gödel expressly said that the liar paradox can be used to derive his
>>> same result, directly quoted on page 7:
>>
>> Right, he started with the basis of the liar's paradox, but by
>> changing how it refers to itself, it removes the issue. Note also, Not
>> Provable is not the same as If False (except by your faulty logic).
>>
>
> LP := ~True(LP)
>   is isomorphic to
> G := ~Provable(G)
> Both specify an infinite a cycle that Prolog would reject.

On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>
>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>> axioms.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Validity and Soundness
>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>
>> cows are not dogs
>> cows are not airplanes
>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>
>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>
> You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
> argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
> decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you think
> you are pointing to exists only in your head.
>
> André
>

According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted
above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.

In any case the divergence from the semantic relevance required by the
syllogism is restored when we simply say that a valid argument requires
that the conclusion be a necessary consequence of the premises. The
other way to say this is that the conclusion is only derived by applying
truth preserving operations to the premises.

This change also gets rid of the principle of explosion.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/18/22 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/22 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Validity and Soundness
>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>
>>>>> cows are not dogs
>>>>> cows are not airplanes
>>>>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>>>>
>>>>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>>>>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>>>>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key change that I am making is to the above definition of valid
>>>>> inference is that I am changing it back to the way it was before
>>>>> logic diverged from the model of the syllogism. (semantically
>>>>> related is required).
>>>>>
>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>>> form that makes the conclusion a necessary consequence of its
>>>>> premises.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what does this actual achieve? (except making it harder to do
>>>> things).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It defines the notion of correct reasoning and realigns logic with
>>> Aristotle's syllogism requiring a semantic connection between the
>>> premises and conclusion.
>>
>> Which does WHAT, ACTUALLY?
>>
>> What useful statement does this allow you to prove, or false premise
>> it allows you to keep from proving.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It over-rides and supersedes the classical logic definition of
>>> logical entailment to make the word "proven" regain its common meaning.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. since the need to prove your arguement means that the
>> conclusion actually has been proven.
>>
>> I suppose the one advantage would be it would disallow arguements
>> based on always false premises, which can then 'prove' false
>> conclusions, but that arguement can't actually be used anyway (even
>> though you try).
>>
>>>
>>> We can no longer correctly say that "butterflies have wings" is
>>> "proven" on the basis that "cows are not dogs" and "cows are not
>>> airplanes".
>>> The principle of explosion is also cancelled by this change.
>>>
>>
>> Except that you never could say that, all you could say is that
>> butterflys have wings because it has been proven that since caows are
>> not dogs and cows are not airplains together are sufficient to show
>> that butterflies have wings. Which is true,
>
> Although it is true that butterflies have wings it is incorrect to
> conclude this entirely on the basis that cows are not dogs and cows are
> not airplanes.
>
> That is why my correction to the definition of a valid argument is
> required.
>
>

It WASN'T concluded entirely on the bases that cows are not dogs and
cows are not airplanes, but needed in addition the PROVEN argument that
if cows are not dogs and cows are not airplanes we can conclude tha
butterflys have wings.

Your arguements are just as much part of your logic system as your
premises, and must be proven just as much as your premises.

Is that you problem, you don't think you need to prove that you are
using proper logic?

On 2/18/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>>
>>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>>> axioms.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> Validity and Soundness
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>
>>> cows are not dogs
>>> cows are not airplanes
>>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>>
>>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>>
>> You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
>> argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
>> decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you
>> think you are pointing to exists only in your head.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted
> above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.
>
> In any case the divergence from the semantic relevance required by the
> syllogism is restored when we simply say that a valid argument requires
> that the conclusion be a necessary consequence of the premises. The
> other way to say this is that the conclusion is only derived by applying
> truth preserving operations to the premises.
>
> This change also gets rid of the principle of explosion.
>

Part of your problem is that arguemnt forms tend NOT to be just based on
fixed premises, but are premise formula, so you don't have this issue.

For instance, one standard arguement could be written as:

If %1 is a %2
and if %2 is a %3
Then
%1 is a %3

as a description of a Transitive rule (so valid over a specified domain
of %1, %2, %3 and definiton of is-a that has the transitive property).

When used in this manner, you don't get these sorts of absurdities.

Your argument might be described as:

%1 are not %2
%1 are not %3
Thus
%4 have %5

Which is clearly NOT a valid argument. You issue is you made your
premises and conclusion concrete statements which ends up boiling down
the proof of the argument to proving the conclusion or disproving the
premises.

On 2/18/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just don't have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal cancer with little time left.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs makes these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank and looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness theorem down to a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple sentence. Try and find a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Truth can only be something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is proven, and then from that try to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that Truth is only something that csn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of statements that must either be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True of False, there is no possible middle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown to be provable or disprovable. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as true until after it has been proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are only two ways to determine if an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an axiom that assigned the value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a axiom you need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified to be true entirely on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "given" in geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree and say that a cat is the windows of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office building you are simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for something already defined in the system,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially to something wrong. That violates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by virtue of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true yet still requires true preserving operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be applied on the basis of semantic relevance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole world agrees is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding the basic principles of Formal Logic, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are thus unqualified to discuss it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which correct reasoning is based.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field. That is useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less peripheral.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth used in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field, which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has inhereted it from its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) The halting problem proofs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) The liar paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>> all suffer from the same foundational error.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely
>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT sort of issue,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of
>>>>>>>>>>>> true statements that necessarily derive true conclusions
>>>>>>>>>>>> then all four of the above examples lose their basis and
>>>>>>>>>>>> cease to exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept
>>>>>>>>>>> that you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something
>>>>>>>>>>> can be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to
>>>>>>>>>>> be true, you can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of
>>>>>>>>>> language is only true when a connected set of true expressions
>>>>>>>>>> prove that it is true, thus true and unprovable cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your
>>>>>>>>> interpreation of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics, (and related logic families) as they allow for a
>>>>>>>>> statement to be True without needing to be connected to a
>>>>>>>>> proof. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>> Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical
>>>>>>>> expression is true aside from its proof that it is true?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can
>>>>>>> bifurcate on that knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
>>>>>> That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
>>>>>> otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Godel sentence is more complicated then that. In essence the
>>>>> Godel sentence says the Godel sentence is can not be proven to be
>>>>> true (without directly referencing th Godel sentence).
>>>>>
>>>>> Either the sentence is True, then it can not be actually PROVEN
>>>>> true in the system, since the sentence states, indirectly, that it
>>>>> is unprovable. (The connection of the statement to itself is
>>>>> outside the reach of the algerbra in question).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, if it IS true, it must be unprovable.
>>>>
>>>> That is exactly the same as the liar paradox:
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is not true. (Is indeed not true).
>>>> This sentence cannot be proven. (Is indeed unprovable).
>>>
>>> The key is that the liar paradox directly refers to the sentence in
>>> question.
>>>
>>> The Godel sentence doesn't, it refers to the sentence by reference to
>>> properties that can't be directly mapped within the algerbra, but can
>>> with some meta-analysis. You don't seem to understand the difference.
>>>
>>> This is just like the fact that H^ does NOT have any self-reference
>>> in it, the machine H^ does absolutely nothing to refer to itself,
>>> (and thus, the algorithm in H/H^ can't base anything on there being a
>>> self-reference)
>>>
>>> THe key is that H^ can take any machines description as its input, so
>>> we can just happen to give it the representation of itself. This is
>>> also NOT a self-reference, the input doesn't somehow encode the
>>> statement 'look at yourself', it just happens to match the machine it
>>> is being given to.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gödel expressly said that the liar paradox can be used to derive his
>>>> same result, directly quoted on page 7:
>>>
>>> Right, he started with the basis of the liar's paradox, but by
>>> changing how it refers to itself, it removes the issue. Note also,
>>> Not Provable is not the same as If False (except by your faulty logic).
>>>
>>
>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>    is isomorphic to
>> G := ~Provable(G)
>> Both specify an infinite a cycle that Prolog would reject.
>
> First, Prolog is NOT the standard to measure by.
>
> Second, True(x) and Provable(x) are DIFFERENT attributes.
>
> Third, THe Godel Sentence is NOT  ~Proveable(G), but
> G := ~Provable(x) with a logic system that connects x to G in an
> indirect way that is only detectable outside the logic system.
>
> That is an important point that you don't seem to understand.
>

On 2/18/22 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> LP := ~True(LP)
>>>    is isomorphic to
>>> G := ~Provable(G)
>>> Both specify an infinite a cycle that Prolog would reject.
>>
>> First, Prolog is NOT the standard to measure by.
>>
>> Second, True(x) and Provable(x) are DIFFERENT attributes.
>>
>> Third, THe Godel Sentence is NOT  ~Proveable(G), but
>> G := ~Provable(x) with a logic system that connects x to G in an
>> indirect way that is only detectable outside the logic system.
>>
>> That is an important point that you don't seem to understand.
>>
>
> Gödel specifically said that makes no difference.
> He specifically said that the Liar Paradox derives an equivalent proof.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Do you have an ACTUAL quote of him saying that, or is that just another
of you lies hiding as you just being imprecise.

The quote you give just says that you can build his proof starting from
any similar epistemological antinomy not that is proof is just such a thing.

I don't think you understand what he was saying.

>
>
>>>>> The liar paradox and Gödel's G are simply not truth bearers in the
>>>>> same way that the sentence: "What time is it?" is not a truth bearer.
>>>>> No self-contradictory expression of language is ever a truth bearer.

And G is NOT self-contradictory in its expression. That is part of the
key of the proof. G indirectly references itself via a mathematical
relationship, not by name. In fact, if I am understanding it right, you
can only find out that it is actually reference G is by first taking G
and finding out its number, so you only know that G references G is by
guess that G is referencing G.

On 2022-02-18 19:19, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>>
>>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>>> axioms.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> Validity and Soundness
>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>
>>> cows are not dogs
>>> cows are not airplanes
>>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>>
>>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>>
>> You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
>> argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
>> decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you
>> think you are pointing to exists only in your head.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted
> above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.

No, it isn't. I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly reach
this conclusion. But it makes it very clear that you don't understand
the definition you are citing at all.

As I said, you really need to take a course on remedial logic. There's
really no point in pontificating about what you perceive as problems
with the notion of validity when you clearly don't grasp what that
concept actually means.

André

> In any case the divergence from the semantic relevance required by the
> syllogism is restored when we simply say that a valid argument requires
> that the conclusion be a necessary consequence of the premises. The
> other way to say this is that the conclusion is only derived by applying
> truth preserving operations to the premises.
>
> This change also gets rid of the principle of explosion.
>

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Python wrote:
>  Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>
>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>> axioms.
>
> !!!!!!!WTF!!!!
So Python is right on to show that Fibble's grasp has us all aghast.
That line above made me think of my high school geometry teacher. She'd
be 120 if still alive. So I think she's spinning in her grave. If Fibble
had started out 5 or 6 decades earlier she'd be muttering "Why did I
dedicate my whole life to trying to educate these dumb shits?" Rest in
peace. You too Euclid and Aristotle. We inferior folks of the 21st
Century AD do sincerely apologize.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 2/18/2022 11:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-18 19:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Validity and Soundness
>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>
>>>> cows are not dogs
>>>> cows are not airplanes
>>>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>>>
>>>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>>>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>>>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>>>
>>> You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
>>> argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
>>> decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you
>>> think you are pointing to exists only in your head.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted
>> above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.
>
> No, it isn't. I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly reach
> this conclusion. But it makes it very clear that you don't understand
> the definition you are citing at all.
>

Sometimes when I come up with reasoning on the fly I make mistakes here
is the correction.

The definition explicitly states that an argument is valid:
if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.

My reasoning was correct my example was not apt, here is a new example:

It is raining
It is not raining
∴ George Washington is made of rakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

My correction for this divergence from correct reasoning is to define a
valid argument such that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of
its premises.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/19/22 9:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 11:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-18 19:19, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 8:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-18 16:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/2022 5:42 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, this seems to make the logical error of assuming the
>>>>>>> conclusion, by assuming something as axiomatic that has not been
>>>>>>> accepted in the field as an axiom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When dealing with FORMAL logic systems, you are not allowed to
>>>>>>> introduce 'new' axioms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense; a new axiom can be derived from one or more preexisting
>>>>>> axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Validity and Soundness
>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>>> form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>>>> conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>
>>>>> cows are not dogs
>>>>> cows are not airplanes
>>>>> ∴ butterflies have wings
>>>>>
>>>>> The above definition of a valid argument makes the above conclusion
>>>>> logically entailed by its premises even though the conclusion is
>>>>> totally unrelated to its premises.
>>>>
>>>> You really need to take a course on preremedial logic. The above
>>>> argument is *not* valid in any standard logic; the conclusion is
>>>> decidedly *not* entailed by the premises, so whatever problem you
>>>> think you are pointing to exists only in your head.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to the English definition of a valid argument that I quoted
>>> above it is. This is apparently the standard definition.
>>
>> No, it isn't. I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly reach
>> this conclusion. But it makes it very clear that you don't understand
>> the definition you are citing at all.
>>
>
> Sometimes when I come up with reasoning on the fly I make mistakes here
> is the correction.
>
> The definition explicitly states that an argument is valid:
> if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true
> and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.
>
> My reasoning was correct my example was not apt, here is a new example:
>
> It is raining
> It is not raining
> ∴ George Washington is made of rakes.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
> It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
>
> My correction for this divergence from correct reasoning is to define a
> valid argument such that the conclusion is a necessary consequence of
> its premises.
>

Who are you to say that argument form is invalid, when you yourself use it?

How many of your arguments that H applied to <H^> <H^> must be correct
in answering non-halting have been pointed out to be incorrect because
you assumed the existance of a premise that was actually impossible
(like embedded_H being a UTM that does abort its simulation).

You have basically proven that you don't really understand the rules of
logic, or the real meaning of Truth, so why should ANYONE beleive
anything you say.