Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

SubjectAuthor
* Category errorMr Flibble
+* Category errorolcott
|`* Category errorRichard Damon
| `* Category errorolcott
|  `* Category errorRichard Damon
|   `* Category errorolcott
|    `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|     `* Category errorolcott
|      `* Category errorRichard Damon
|       +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|       |`* Category errorolcott
|       | `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|       |  +- Category errorRichard Damon
|       |  `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   +* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   |`* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | +* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   | |`* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | | `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   | |  `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |  `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |   `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |    `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |     `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |      `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |       `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |    `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |     `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |      `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |       `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |        `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |         `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       `* Category errorolcott
|        +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |`* Category errorolcott
|        | `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |  `* Category errorolcott
|        |   +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |   |`- Category errorolcott
|        |   `* Category errorRichard Damon
|        |    `* Category errorolcott
|        |     `* Category errorRichard Damon
|        |      `* Category errorolcott
|        |       `- Category errorRichard Damon
|        `- Category errorRichard Damon
+* Category errorwij
|`* Category errorMr Flibble
| `- Category errorolcott
`* Category errorMikko
 `* Category errorolcott
  +* Category errorRichard Damon
  |`* Category errorolcott
  | `- Category errorRichard Damon
  `* Category errorBen
   +* Category errorolcott
   |+- Category errorRichard Damon
   |`- Category errorBen
   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
    +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
    `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
     `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Malcolm McLean
      | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      |  `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Malcolm McLean
      |   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |    `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
       `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
        +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
        `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
         `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
          +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
          +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |+- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Richard Damon
          |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Ben
          | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Richard Damon
          |  `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Ben
          |   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          |    +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Richard Damon
          |    `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Ben
          |     +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          |     |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Ben
          |     | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Ben
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  |||+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  |||| `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||||  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Richard Damon
          |     |  |||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Malcolm McLean
          |     |  ||| `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |||  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  ||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Ben
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Richard Damon
          |     `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Python
          `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben

Pages:123456789101112
Re: Category error

<t5pvgq$j65$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32528&group=comp.theory#32528

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:28:10 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <t5pvgq$j65$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 04:28:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6beb8ccd4b3ea5a6beaa315666b0d166";
logging-data="19653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kdXFTOlR8bHu4DdOYAhgV"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4uv7rLbUm7q6sWzAVGy4DbY8DEg=
In-Reply-To: <R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:28 UTC

On 2022-05-14 22:14, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>> collected?
>>>>
>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>
>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
>> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.

You certainly have not done this so far. And you have a bad habit of
referring to statements which are clearly false as 'self-evidently correct'.

André

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

Re: Category error

<46udnTs1ysyUHx3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32529&group=comp.theory#32529

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:31:05 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:31:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pvgq$j65$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pvgq$j65$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <46udnTs1ysyUHx3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-M2I2fvhcc6zFxaPOQhxBopigXKiVt3RL9dkke36fAaWlujJO7SgTe62ib68CPeq+pNlIzms0MngsegM!VyLHRaGiQGdPFCK0jHTQPvNAIC9+1BmTjv+ngoNzDITQI2TP/BogPzY82IKFdgeY1BgxNU+LFxs=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3474
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:31 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 22:14, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>>> collected?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>>
>>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
>>> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.
>
> You certainly have not done this so far. And you have a bad habit of
> referring to statements which are clearly false as 'self-evidently
> correct'.
>
> André
>

Self evidently correct means that there are connected ideas that prove
it is correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<t5pvmm$kk8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32530&group=comp.theory#32530

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:31:16 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <t5pvmm$kk8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 04:31:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6beb8ccd4b3ea5a6beaa315666b0d166";
logging-data="21128"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hen2O2RnmJ+F6j1+7gtGj"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ThHiv2HsHC6NkAPQuM1FtzreHes=
In-Reply-To: <R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:31 UTC

On 2022-05-14 22:13, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error became
>>>>>> clear to him).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>
>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>
>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>
>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>
>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>
>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>
>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>> through semantic connections.
>>
>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
>> use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
>> usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
>> when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.
>>
>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>
>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The burden
>> of proof lies with you.
>>
>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>
> I will make that one concrete.
> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to anything
> else that shows that it is true.

How does that make anything more concrete? If I don't know what you mean
by 'semantic connection' why do you think I will know what you mean by
'connected'?

And this is besides the point since you have the burden of proof
backwards. It's not incumbent on anyone to find counterexamples to every
random 'theory' that someone on usenet puts forward. Its incumbent on
the person putting forth the theory to provide proof.

André

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<N9mdnY-EGsZCHh3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32531&group=comp.theory#32531

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:38:55 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:38:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pvmm$kk8$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5pvmm$kk8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <N9mdnY-EGsZCHh3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zfPu2sbdh0654aLM/6jilxvQtUPbMQ7wuQIXWpePW7brR100bl4ykZ/VskzA7wt+vdNhfiJcWulp8Hi!jFNpte43uhQ5O+VE/39DhjpyOaMRRTvHlMqg7QskY0n2XzK87U6Eu/bnEtWilWFfuk/ZXF4F3lI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5612
 by: olcott - Sun, 15 May 2022 04:38 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 22:13, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error
>>>>>>> became clear to him).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>
>>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>>
>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>
>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>>
>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>
>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
>>> use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
>>> usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
>>> when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.
>>>
>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>
>>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The
>>> burden of proof lies with you.
>>>
>>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>>
>> I will make that one concrete.
>> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to
>> anything else that shows that it is true.
>
> How does that make anything more concrete? If I don't know what you mean
> by 'semantic connection' why do you think I will know what you mean by
> 'connected'?
>

This is great we are trying to attain mutulual understanding now.

When you look to see how you know anything about anything it is all
connections between meanings.

This is a connected set of meanings:
"I am going to go to the store to buy some eggs."

> And this is besides the point since you have the burden of proof
> backwards. It's not incumbent on anyone to find counterexamples to every
> random 'theory' that someone on usenet puts forward. Its incumbent on
> the person putting forth the theory to provide proof.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32533&group=comp.theory#32533

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 12:13:58 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="106687a79ac0880e8ffcf33692d8bfab";
logging-data="28345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197JbgZKNUVd1lb3jMYGorm"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dENgarT1f2WVE6A2n9Ev4U59gIQ=
 by: Mikko - Sun, 15 May 2022 09:13 UTC

On 2022-05-14 16:05:55 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
> refute anything of substance.

Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite
depending on details of his H. It is not possible to point a single
statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are
other points that could be changed so that the infinite recursion
disappears.

A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.

Mikko

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<9u5gK.6020$i7Ab.3784@fx05.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32535&group=comp.theory#32535

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx05.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <9u5gK.6020$i7Ab.3784@fx05.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 07:29:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4113
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 May 2022 11:29 UTC

On 5/14/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>
>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>
>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>>>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal
>>>> which was never intended for publication (which explains why he
>>>> never bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to
>>>> him).
>>>>
>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>
>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>
>
>
> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>
> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>
> KEY_INSIGHT:
> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
> all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
> between elements of this same body.
>
> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
> through semantic connections.
>
> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*

Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF.

By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others, are
PROVED.

>
> STANDARD_MEANING:
> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of their
> meaning.

Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".

>
> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is based
> on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or fail
> verification.
>

Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
based on it becomes UNSOND.

>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>
>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>
>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
>> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and
>> false.
>>
>> André
>>
>
>

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<Ew5gK.6021$i7Ab.749@fx05.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32536&group=comp.theory#32536

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx05.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <Ew5gK.6021$i7Ab.749@fx05.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 07:31:50 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4331
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 May 2022 11:31 UTC

On 5/15/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error became
>>>>>> clear to him).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>
>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>
>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>
>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>
>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>
>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>
>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>> through semantic connections.
>>
>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
>> use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
>> usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
>> when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.
>>
>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>
>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The burden
>> of proof lies with you.
>>
>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>
> I will make that one concrete.
> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to anything
> else that shows that it is true.
>

One of:

The Collbatz conjecture is True.

The Collbatz conjecture is False.

Re: Category error

<oD5gK.6562$56e6.2619@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32537&group=comp.theory#32537

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <oD5gK.6562$56e6.2619@fx34.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 07:39:01 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3062
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 15 May 2022 11:39 UTC

On 5/15/22 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>> collected?
>>>>
>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>
>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
>> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.
>

Given your track record, that makes it almost certainly wrong.

Self-Evident, for logic, is a GROUP decision, that the group accepts it
as self-evident and usable as a basis for common understanding.

YOU fail with that definition.

Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description of
most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR to be
self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<t5rhpm$efv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32540&group=comp.theory#32540

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 12:46:13 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <t5rhpm$efv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pvmm$kk8$1@dont-email.me>
<N9mdnY-EGsZCHh3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 18:46:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8bfb22d37816d916a9ba3ccab4cdcd37";
logging-data="14847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+gs8pgmKy1Hk/Nirgnpsd"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8rmXOIOQcFeabANzCIplHpXG4Y8=
In-Reply-To: <N9mdnY-EGsZCHh3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Sun, 15 May 2022 18:46 UTC

On 2022-05-14 22:38, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 22:13, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do
>>>>>>>>> of know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error
>>>>>>>> became clear to him).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>>
>>>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>>>
>>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>>
>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>>>
>>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>>
>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And
>>>> your use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the
>>>> standard usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that
>>>> normally arises when talking about the philosophy of language, not
>>>> logic.
>>>>
>>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>>
>>>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The
>>>> burden of proof lies with you.
>>>>
>>>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>>>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>>>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>>>
>>> I will make that one concrete.
>>> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to
>>> anything else that shows that it is true.
>>
>> How does that make anything more concrete? If I don't know what you
>> mean by 'semantic connection' why do you think I will know what you
>> mean by 'connected'?
>>
>
> This is great we are trying to attain mutulual understanding now.
>
> When you look to see how you know anything about anything it is all
> connections between meanings.

I thought the issue being discussed was truth. How we know things is an
entirely separate issue.

> This is a connected set of meanings:
> "I am going to go to the store to buy some eggs."

No amount of examples is a substitute for a definition (especially
examples like the above which have absolutely no explanation given along
with them).

A definition should take the following form:

Two items, A and B, are semantically connected iff ...

André

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

Re: Category error

<-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32551&group=comp.theory#32551

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 21:59:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 21:59:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-oid2PYuTat4BfNw495TFvD0yqUD4dLF8a5PCHmjwip++nxD/UkHedBJgXw/T5RoVDbkhnokL3u06nNY!kXzJR7WOHoEzZQEZOLua7iomAOOOW1+tsjmhXTpkMaQa8jpEuDPE6ypW2u7yJd7muVfwqml42/E=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3668
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 02:59 UTC

On 5/15/2022 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 16:05:55 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>
>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>> refute anything of substance.
>
> Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite
> depending on details of his H.

The key point is that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)
never reaches its own final state thus never halts.

> It is not possible to point a single
> statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are
> other points that could be changed so that the infinite recursion
> disappears.

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
....[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
....[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
....[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
....[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
....[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

>
> A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
> where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.
>
> Mikko
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<M7mdndj7j_ZB_xn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32553&group=comp.theory#32553

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:07:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:07:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pvmm$kk8$1@dont-email.me>
<N9mdnY-EGsZCHh3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5rhpm$efv$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t5rhpm$efv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <M7mdndj7j_ZB_xn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 114
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8oBj6xJD0gA8SQjH4s0nSzkK6pXSxyAV0M0kHjU1qtRfhVgRdia8ekvoSks/laHJivDi9mwyQkYwIXt!U34CdXa472ML6ONUHtk8yYFyl4KOCEPHzjvQt9bKNyrsLhXcO4MRgPuEoWhIu4krzvZ/QQoaClQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6323
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 03:07 UTC

On 5/15/2022 1:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 22:38, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 22:13, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do
>>>>>>>>>> of know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a
>>>>>>>>> private journal which was never intended for publication (which
>>>>>>>>> explains why he never bothered to retract this remark once the
>>>>>>>>> error became clear to him).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And
>>>>> your use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the
>>>>> standard usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that
>>>>> normally arises when talking about the philosophy of language, not
>>>>> logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The
>>>>> burden of proof lies with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>>>>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>>>>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>>>>
>>>> I will make that one concrete.
>>>> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to
>>>> anything else that shows that it is true.
>>>
>>> How does that make anything more concrete? If I don't know what you
>>> mean by 'semantic connection' why do you think I will know what you
>>> mean by 'connected'?
>>>
>>
>> This is great we are trying to attain mutulual understanding now.
>>
>> When you look to see how you know anything about anything it is all
>> connections between meanings.
>
> I thought the issue being discussed was truth. How we know things is an
> entirely separate issue.
>
>> This is a connected set of meanings:
>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some eggs."
>
> No amount of examples is a substitute for a definition (especially
> examples like the above which have absolutely no explanation given along
> with them).
>
> A definition should take the following form:
>
> Two items, A and B, are semantically connected iff ...
>
> André
>

The elements of the body of conceptual truth are connected together
semantically mutually defining the semantic meaning of each other.

Mostly this is done in an inheritance hierarchy such that specific
concepts are defined in terms of broader ones.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<EbKdnVBfIrpJ-Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32555&group=comp.theory#32555

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:15:32 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:15:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9u5gK.6020$i7Ab.3784@fx05.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <9u5gK.6020$i7Ab.3784@fx05.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <EbKdnVBfIrpJ-Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-jVq1XrvoAfPQwmC/LprpTSJ1A78iaODQZm5vQEyz2yhDHakYRJw+YbYDZtV+x5MkTwUgsW1jzqAjRr2!ORcFyOpSwCy6V7YUBsQBnU24S6w76wfFwTC+T/IuBjWg4YbSNgvfz/k38mj0z7LTZNe1gf9h0mo=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5271
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 03:15 UTC

On 5/15/2022 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error became
>>>>> clear to him).
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>
>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>
>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>
>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
>> all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
>> between elements of this same body.
>>
>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>> through semantic connections.
>>
>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>
> Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF.
>

Proof generically means that an expression of language has been
definitely established as true by some means.

> By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others, are
> PROVED.
>
>
>>
>> STANDARD_MEANING:
>> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of
>> their meaning.
>
> Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".
>

That is the definition of analytic truth.

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
knowing those meanings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

>>
>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
>> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is
>> based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or
>> fail verification.
>>
>
> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
> based on it becomes UNSOND.

I think that we agree on this.

>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>
>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>
>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
>>> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and
>>> false.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<EbKdnVNfIrrQ-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32556&group=comp.theory#32556

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:17:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:17:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ew5gK.6021$i7Ab.749@fx05.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <Ew5gK.6021$i7Ab.749@fx05.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <EbKdnVNfIrrQ-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 88
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hclaZQBBFPgPmlekej4yokA/r6nFwt9JzgJ3UYzn2WK2khH4QqAdymWeGwd01WjlcYTGtKRGfZ2HbYZ!gpjTBr30qd9+Jx4Kxk3EmSEGEubpZ2LGG2puqaMDOr2gE5MwIq16iXDd3g+yElkR6EDGaaoNZm0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5020
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 03:17 UTC

On 5/15/2022 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/15/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error
>>>>>>> became clear to him).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>
>>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>>
>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>
>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>>
>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>
>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
>>> use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
>>> usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
>>> when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.
>>>
>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>
>>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The
>>> burden of proof lies with you.
>>>
>>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>>
>> I will make that one concrete.
>> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to
>> anything else that shows that it is true.
>>
>
>
> One of:
>
> The Collbatz conjecture is True.
>
> The Collbatz conjecture is False.
>

That is connected to tautology.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<EbKdnVJfIrpr-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32557&group=comp.theory#32557

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:20:22 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:20:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<oD5gK.6562$56e6.2619@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <oD5gK.6562$56e6.2619@fx34.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <EbKdnVJfIrpr-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 67
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-oFhE9YtCobBZrwqbdv6WIAEW8c4SRaxYw9meIuTkw1ociI5cqe8XpDm3nuuZXCuI9WhDlNOvM/bIwKj!NE/vNyPEoYWwPlnAp1SyXda+RvNWjMvz/VFeSzJL4jkIILhrENorwdVdP4MudsP1xbPMG+OXnLE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4173
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 03:20 UTC

On 5/15/2022 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/15/22 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>>> collected?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>>
>>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
>>> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.
>>
>
> Given your track record, that makes it almost certainly wrong.
>
> Self-Evident, for logic, is a GROUP decision, that the group accepts it
> as self-evident and usable as a basis for common understanding.
>

A self-evident truth proves that it is completely true entirely on the
basis of its meaning. If everyone in the universe disagrees then
everyone in the universe is wrong.

> YOU fail with that definition.
>
> Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description of
> most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR to be
> self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
knowing those meanings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<4P4hK.9996$dLI5.27@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32559&group=comp.theory#32559

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ew5gK.6021$i7Ab.749@fx05.iad>
<EbKdnVNfIrrQ-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <EbKdnVNfIrrQ-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <4P4hK.9996$dLI5.27@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 07:32:16 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4983
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 18 May 2022 11:32 UTC

On 5/17/22 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2022 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/15/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do
>>>>>>>>> of know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error
>>>>>>>> became clear to him).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>>
>>>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>>>
>>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>>
>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>>>
>>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>>
>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And
>>>> your use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the
>>>> standard usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that
>>>> normally arises when talking about the philosophy of language, not
>>>> logic.
>>>>
>>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>>
>>>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The
>>>> burden of proof lies with you.
>>>>
>>>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>>>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>>>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>>>
>>> I will make that one concrete.
>>> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to
>>> anything else that shows that it is true.
>>>
>>
>>
>> One of:
>>
>> The Collbatz conjecture is True.
>>
>> The Collbatz conjecture is False.
>>
>
> That is connected to tautology.
>

Nope. We know that one of the sentences is true.

THAT sentence is not establisned by "Tautology"

That sentence being true disproves your statement.

Unless you are defining that "untrue or untrue" is True, you have a
problem (and if yoy do, you still have a proble).

Re: Category error

<035hK.8428$Yfl6.2831@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32560&group=comp.theory#32560

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<oD5gK.6562$56e6.2619@fx34.iad>
<EbKdnVJfIrpr-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <EbKdnVJfIrpr-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <035hK.8428$Yfl6.2831@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 07:49:15 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5098
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 18 May 2022 11:49 UTC

On 5/17/22 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2022 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/15/22 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven
>>>>>>>> (so isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system
>>>>>>>> that accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when
>>>>>>> logic diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>>>> collected?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>>>
>>>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>>>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view
>>>> of what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.
>>>
>>
>> Given your track record, that makes it almost certainly wrong.
>>
>> Self-Evident, for logic, is a GROUP decision, that the group accepts
>> it as self-evident and usable as a basis for common understanding.
>>
>
> A self-evident truth proves that it is completely true entirely on the
> basis of its meaning. If everyone in the universe disagrees then
> everyone in the universe is wrong.

A self-evident truth requires ALL (or all reasonable) to aggree that it
is true. If someone sees something as true that no one else does, that
is not "self-evident truth", that is DELUSION.

>
>> YOU fail with that definition.
>>
>> Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description
>> of most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR to
>> be self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.
>
>
> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
> knowing those meanings.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>

Analyses of philosophically important terms and concepts, such as
“material object,” “cause,” “freedom,” or “knowledge” turned out,
however, to be far more problematic than philosophers had anticipated, ...

I will note that if you read through that article (I will admit I just
scanned it) it talks a lot about how mathematics cause PROBLEMS for the
analytic philosophies, and how to try to handle it.

I note it largely is talking about KNOWLEDGE, not actual TRUTH. it also
talks about how to try to LIMIT the domain of the logic to that which
can be reasoned (i.e. proved).

Yes, this is a valid domain to work in, but it CAN'T handle
"Mathematics" in the full sense, so can't be used to "Disprove" things
like the Halting Problem or the Incomplentness Theorem, because the
logics that define those problems are outside the domain that such a
logic can handle.

You just don't understand that basic property of logic.

Re: Category error

<h55hK.8429$Yfl6.4221@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32561&group=comp.theory#32561

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me> <-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <h55hK.8429$Yfl6.4221@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 07:51:40 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3877
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 18 May 2022 11:51 UTC

On 5/17/22 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2022 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 16:05:55 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>
>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>>> refute anything of substance.
>>
>> Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite
>> depending on details of his H.
>
> The key point is that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)
> never reaches its own final state thus never halts.
>
>> It is not possible to point a single
>> statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are
>> other points that could be changed so that the infinite recursion
>> disappears.
>
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:212352
> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55         push ebp      // enter P
> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55         push ebp      // enter P
> ...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
> ...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
> ...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
> with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
> recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

No, it didn't, at least NOT with a "Correct Trace". It sees it a trace
of P where H has been replaced with just a call to its input.

Since that is NOT what H is, the logic is based on a false premise, an
is thus unsound.

If you are defining that to be correct, then your logic is incorrrect,
or at least NOT the "Halting Problem".

All you have done is maybe show that your H can decides your POOP
correctly, not Halting.

>
>>
>> A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
>> where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
>

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<1k5hK.8430$Yfl6.562@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32562&group=comp.theory#32562

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9u5gK.6020$i7Ab.3784@fx05.iad>
<EbKdnVBfIrpJ-Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <EbKdnVBfIrpJ-Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <1k5hK.8430$Yfl6.562@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 08:07:25 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5816
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 18 May 2022 12:07 UTC

On 5/17/22 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2022 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error became
>>>>>> clear to him).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>
>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>
>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>
>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>
>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>> through semantic connections.
>>>
>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>
>> Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF.
>>
>
> Proof generically means that an expression of language has been
> definitely established as true by some means.
>
>> By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others,
>> are PROVED.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> STANDARD_MEANING:
>>> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of
>>> their meaning.
>>
>> Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".
>>
>
> That is the definition of analytic truth.
>
> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
> knowing those meanings.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Note "Historically", that was what was assumed to be a characteristic of
such statements, that they could be shown true or false by a manner of
proof.

Then, we got the proof that some statements, that might want to be
called analytic couldn't be proven or disproven.

As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic", or
is it more emperical.

Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
emperical truth show to be true because it just works.

Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper to
analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.

>
>>>
>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
>>> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is
>>> based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or
>>> fail verification.
>>>
>>
>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
>> based on it becomes UNSOND.
>
> I think that we agree on this.

So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?

>
>>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>>
>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>
>>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
>>>> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true
>>>> and false.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<FpWdnTPKrfH5lhj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32565&group=comp.theory#32565

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:06:12 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:06:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pu7e$c99$1@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnS43-Kt14B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ew5gK.6021$i7Ab.749@fx05.iad>
<EbKdnVNfIrrQ-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xQAAAA@giganews.com> <4P4hK.9996$dLI5.27@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <4P4hK.9996$dLI5.27@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FpWdnTPKrfH5lhj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 110
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-cY4RL6SzIq2Hfk6P61TencsGzTLKhsSS9nyMA+78x3gcWXcvs37SPe9wUnRJXZ7qY/9QnKm5SLozWf3!PHSF9SqD756QLm5dfhDSBP5xtXLai4uYi3M0XKVzZv6wautlt/xicW3mehJRpW6s2LtoC7f1B4s=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5889
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:06 UTC

On 5/18/2022 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/22 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2022 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/15/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:06 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 21:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do
>>>>>>>>>> of know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a
>>>>>>>>> private journal which was never intended for publication (which
>>>>>>>>> explains why he never bothered to retract this remark once the
>>>>>>>>> error became clear to him).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And
>>>>> your use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the
>>>>> standard usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that
>>>>> normally arises when talking about the philosophy of language, not
>>>>> logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The
>>>>> burden of proof lies with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to
>>>>> track down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea
>>>>> what you mean by 'semantic connection'.
>>>>
>>>> I will make that one concrete.
>>>> Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to
>>>> anything else that shows that it is true.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of:
>>>
>>> The Collbatz conjecture is True.
>>>
>>> The Collbatz conjecture is False.
>>>
>>
>> That is connected to tautology.
>>
>
> Nope. We know that one of the sentences is true.
>
> THAT sentence is not establisned by "Tautology"
>
> That sentence being true disproves your statement.
>

You did not provide an example of a sentence that is true that is not
connected to anything else that shows that it is true.

We know that logic sentences are true or false on the basis of the
definition of logic sentence.

> Unless you are defining that "untrue or untrue" is True, you have a
> problem (and if yoy do, you still have a proble).

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<hL6dnRMh9tb_kRj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32566&group=comp.theory#32566

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:10:26 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:10:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dneXnkN5JoR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pekc$p7g$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVGEj4068B3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t5pu9v$c99$2@dont-email.me>
<R7ydnSk3-Ku-4x3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<oD5gK.6562$56e6.2619@fx34.iad>
<EbKdnVJfIrpr-Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<035hK.8428$Yfl6.2831@fx41.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <035hK.8428$Yfl6.2831@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <hL6dnRMh9tb_kRj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pXySjoOvuA4kwUWCVn+wWvhGOXyBicZEjkvyY4peKKY339fLKFjorr0HHRdMIzfkjEgEuZ9YWK6Hdjo!mSqgq3BAiG/q17xn9HpMDQ9JCmxGdRHqbBZ+2v7VfyArqfu8KTPmv1I8RnR9oUr0GY7IDWKMTHs=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5968
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:10 UTC

On 5/18/2022 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/17/22 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2022 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/15/22 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven
>>>>>>>>> (so isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system
>>>>>>>>> that accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when
>>>>>>>> logic diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can
>>>>>>> you point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference
>>>>>>> are collected?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>>>>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view
>>>>> of what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given your track record, that makes it almost certainly wrong.
>>>
>>> Self-Evident, for logic, is a GROUP decision, that the group accepts
>>> it as self-evident and usable as a basis for common understanding.
>>>
>>
>> A self-evident truth proves that it is completely true entirely on the
>> basis of its meaning. If everyone in the universe disagrees then
>> everyone in the universe is wrong.
>
> A self-evident truth requires ALL (or all reasonable) to aggree that it
> is true.

Not at all. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT IS DEFINED.

> If someone sees something as true that no one else does, that
> is not "self-evident truth", that is DELUSION.
>
>>
>>> YOU fail with that definition.
>>>
>>> Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description
>>> of most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR
>>> to be self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.
>>
>>
>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>> knowing those meanings.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>
>
> Analyses of philosophically important terms and concepts, such as
> “material object,” “cause,” “freedom,” or “knowledge” turned out,
> however, to be far more problematic than philosophers had anticipated, ...
>

It was only the quoted paragraph that was significant.
Every expression of formal or natural language that can be determined to
be true entirely on the basis of its meaning is an analytic expression
language.

> I will note that if you read through that article (I will admit I just
> scanned it) it talks a lot about how mathematics cause PROBLEMS for the
> analytic philosophies, and how to try to handle it.
>
> I note it largely is talking about KNOWLEDGE, not actual TRUTH. it also
> talks about how to try to LIMIT the domain of the logic to that which
> can be reasoned (i.e. proved).
>
> Yes, this is a valid domain to work in, but it CAN'T handle
> "Mathematics" in the full sense, so can't be used to "Disprove" things
> like the Halting Problem or the Incomplentness Theorem, because the
> logics that define those problems are outside the domain that such a
> logic can handle.
>
> You just don't understand that basic property of logic.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<76WdnRd_N9qpkBj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32567&group=comp.theory#32567

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:13:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:13:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me> <-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<h55hK.8429$Yfl6.4221@fx41.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <h55hK.8429$Yfl6.4221@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <76WdnRd_N9qpkBj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 81
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ghsrqnvddr/ASgJ9C95RhosP62N20YBaIi0fCe/uJafVPD5lKlB7mA7KltobpzMv8U1D4kjIOVDGbLS!fmYQyLLfoHliEwTJPaj4v8EhS4Di0aHcE4zVX87qm/LPJiRlQ4xZpw5X9RCcGVyZPlnt69uCtfM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4769
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:13 UTC

On 5/18/2022 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/22 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2022 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 16:05:55 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>
>>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>>>> refute anything of substance.
>>>
>>> Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite
>>> depending on details of his H.
>>
>> The key point is that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>> never reaches its own final state thus never halts.
>>
>>> It is not possible to point a single
>>> statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are
>>> other points that could be changed so that the infinite recursion
>>> disappears.
>>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55         push ebp      // enter P
>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55         push ebp      // enter P
>> ...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
>> ...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
>> ...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
>> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
>> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior
>> pattern.
>
> No, it didn't, at least NOT with a "Correct Trace". It sees it a trace
> of P where H has been replaced with just a call to its input.
>

When we know that H only performs a pure simulation of its input then we
don't need to see the hundreds of pages of execution trace of H.

SINCE I TOLD YOU THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES YOU ARE BEING QUITE DESPICABLY
DISHONEST ABOUT THIS.

> Since that is NOT what H is, the logic is based on a false premise, an
> is thus unsound.
>
> If you are defining that to be correct, then your logic is incorrrect,
> or at least NOT the "Halting Problem".
>
> All you have done is maybe show that your H can decides your POOP
> correctly, not Halting.
>
>>
>>>
>>> A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
>>> where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32570&group=comp.theory#32570

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me>
<-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="597d063fbc8ca8a46b66c867b46b89b8";
logging-data="27297"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198L33lte7zndV0/B6CDHh1qB3eWKgzl8I="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lEBBOo6rE0js1/9y+VDnzSnXVac=
sha1:iSDIf6QGZa2FD/WTq8xm6jnfmyI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.091f70a436ade675ebfa.20220518163128BST.87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:31 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P

This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
entering a simulator.

You've admitted you edit some traces which is really not on. I think
you should stop posting them until you can be honest about them.

Mind you, my personally guess is that the trace is fundamentally honest
about you've been pulling our legs about what H really does. It's just
the top-level x86 emulator that does that does any "simulating" and H
really does call P which calls H which calls P...

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

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]

<65WdnVtH4_ccjBj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32571&group=comp.theory#32571

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:32:17 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:32:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<tdKdnQC2Q9inQuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <tPUfK.189$SWc6.187@fx44.iad>
<G7KdnTUzU-qUgR3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<TcVfK.6636$j0D5.3767@fx09.iad>
<8IOdnQUS39_Rux3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t5p979$q10$1@dont-email.me>
<va-dnZMHj_bJth3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<nwWfK.24088$JSxf.7488@fx11.iad> <t5pdh0$k9t$1@dont-email.me>
<o9KdncqVOZBkpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t5pe74$o0t$1@dont-email.me>
<zaKdnVaEj43X8B3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9u5gK.6020$i7Ab.3784@fx05.iad>
<EbKdnVBfIrpJ-Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1k5hK.8430$Yfl6.562@fx41.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <1k5hK.8430$Yfl6.562@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <65WdnVtH4_ccjBj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 148
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HfaVNCaKFt9LarQ62Wz45xOwHTtbzy4hMAFQ2O8+LvAoTh6E7Bu+P1hbYCyP9cXFxh8AHaH4xcwBAdJ!be/lUL2EIbGpyBDS9pAlh6R4AzGNxW3l5AX1TGv9gx5CtQqSIEXSU4RII40iuhz/22NV/Eko3r0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6895
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:32 UTC

On 5/18/2022 7:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/22 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2022 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts
>>>>>>>>> and London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's
>>>>>>>> paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of
>>>>>>>> know knowing what he is talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his
>>>>>>> initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private
>>>>>>> journal which was never intended for publication (which explains
>>>>>>> why he never bothered to retract this remark once the error
>>>>>>> became clear to him).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>>>>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been
>>>>>>> pointed out to him repeatedly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.
>>>>
>>>> KEY_INSIGHT:
>>>> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge
>>>> (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic
>>>> connections between elements of this same body.
>>>>
>>>> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
>>>> through semantic connections.
>>>>
>>>> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*
>>>
>>> Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF.
>>>
>>
>> Proof generically means that an expression of language has been
>> definitely established as true by some means.
>>
>>> By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others,
>>> are PROVED.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> STANDARD_MEANING:
>>>> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of
>>>> their meaning.
>>>
>>> Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".
>>>
>>
>> That is the definition of analytic truth.
>>
>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>> knowing those meanings.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>
> Note "Historically", that was what was assumed to be a characteristic of
> such statements, that they could be shown true or false by a manner of
> proof.
>
> Then, we got the proof that some statements, that might want to be
> called analytic couldn't be proven or disproven.
>

There is no freaking "might want" there is only <is> and <not is>.
If you "might want the definitions of a term to be different than it is
then you are simply screwy.

> As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic", or
> is it more emperical.
>

It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical.

> Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
> the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
> doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
> emperical truth show to be true because it just works.
>

Empirical means that you must be able to taste, touch, smell, or hear it.

> Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper to
> analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that
>>>> x has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is
>>>> based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or
>>>> fail verification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
>>> based on it becomes UNSOND.
>>
>> I think that we agree on this.
>
> So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?

Unproven means unsound. Sound requires proven.

>>
>>>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of
>>>>> the excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only
>>>>> true and false.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error

<84mdncZ3-IYNjhj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32573&group=comp.theory#32573

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:41:04 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:41:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me> <-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <84mdncZ3-IYNjhj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 43
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Nj714wcF85LkUlALXpIka1WDvIpCE4NH9FExQIHd5nKjmm+Cpo6m+0TbUBcS+4lr0R/CH5xz1Y9lcmm!3zTtQRGTYGRfqMjyFFHEo6RA5P/xkuX3cgGrr0NKt1WPGz1TujhblDsfmaxZeGwfaXFNxqeDrh0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3101
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 15:41 UTC

On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
>
> This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
> The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
> something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
> entering a simulator.
>

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT H PERFORMS A PURE SIMULATION
OF ITS INPUT THUS HAS NO BEHAVIOR THAT CAN HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE
BEHAVIOR OF ITS INPUT THUS NO NEED TO SEE ITS HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF
EXECUTION TRACE ???

> You've admitted you edit some traces which is really not on. I think
> you should stop posting them until you can be honest about them.
>

YOU ARE SUCH A JACKASS. (and much better programmer than I knew).

> Mind you, my personally guess is that the trace is fundamentally honest
> about you've been pulling our legs about what H really does. It's just
> the top-level x86 emulator that does that does any "simulating" and H
> really does call P which calls H which calls P...
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]

<EuidnURwxcY6vhj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32576&group=comp.theory#32576

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:49:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:49:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<t5qg8m$rlp$1@dont-email.me> <-YWdnXUTXaNq_Rn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ee0qq2lr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EuidnURwxcY6vhj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 139
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4Xsn/GlRbG4viQA9sPdvzwFiMbwogpYqSeAG+YrlgApsVmNWNqnoMj89u59GBVla/5qmq6tzjZBi2Qj!GodFVIX9MBgrZ8T+tjI44t5FjJTh8B81x3oHveuO+F1V4gnDpEZeRulhKb5sI66tPvZhrKs8v6o=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7369
 by: olcott - Wed, 18 May 2022 16:49 UTC

On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
>
> This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
> The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
> something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
> entering a simulator.
>
> You've admitted you edit some traces which is really not on. I think
> you should stop posting them until you can be honest about them.
>
> Mind you, my personally guess is that the trace is fundamentally honest
> about you've been pulling our legs about what H really does. It's just
> the top-level x86 emulator that does that does any "simulating" and H
> really does call P which calls H which calls P...
>

ON THE BASIS OF THE X86 MACHINE CODE PROVIDED FOR P AND THE
EXECUTION TRACE OF P PROVIDED BY H IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT
THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P IS THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P THAT
WOULD OCCUR IF H PERFORMED A PURE SIMULATION OF THE FIRST
13 INSTRUCTIONS OF P.

BECAUSE OF THIS THE INSISTENCE ON SEEING THE HUNDREDS OF
PAGES OF THE EXECUTION TRACE OF H OR THE SOURCE-CODE OF H
IS A JACKASS MOVE THAT IS ONLY PLAYING HEAD GAMES.

#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]

_main()
[00001372](01) 55 push ebp
[00001373](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001375](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137a](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137f](05) e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001384](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001387](01) 50 push eax
[00001388](05) 6823040000 push 00000423 // "Input_Halts = "
[0000138d](05) e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
[00001392](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001395](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00001397](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001398](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0039) [00001398]

machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
....[00001372][0010229e][00000000] 55 push ebp
....[00001373][0010229e][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001375][0010229a][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
....[0000137a][00102296][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
....[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
....[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
....[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
....[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
....[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
....[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

....[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
....[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50 push eax
....[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
"Input_Halts = "
---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
Input_Halts = 0
....[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
....[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
....[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d pop ebp
....[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3 ret
Number_of_User_Instructions(1)
Number of Instructions Executed(15892)

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:123456789101112
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor