Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

tech / sci.logic / Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]olcott
+* Re: Linz's proofs [ignore olcott spamimmibis
|`- Re: Linz's proofs [ignore olcott spamRichard Damon
`* Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]olcott
 `- Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]immibis

1
Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]

<ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=8259&group=sci.logic#8259

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!newsfeed.endofthelinebbs.com!nyheter.lysator.liu.se!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:36:06 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ur09d3$21cvb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:36:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e96c724f74189356bc2613f1f9d1d394";
logging-data="2140266"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z3gpA4kM8j6ytpppdpT1r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:29RWyZkSDnCHcTtaRwDuG3Rulx8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ur09d3$21cvb$1@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:36 UTC

On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-19 11:28:19 +0000, Ben Bacarisse said:
>
>> Conversely, the classical proof by contradiction seems to lead a lot of
>> non-mathematical students astray.
>
> Therefore i'd prefer a direct proof, e.g., if M is a Turing machine
> then M is not a halt decider for Turing machines.
>

That is isomorphic to the Tarski Undefinability theorem proof:
If a truth predicate exists then
Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
correctly returns true or false.

That technical people are clueless about analytical truth makers
means that they lack the basis to correctly evaluate these things.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Linz's proofs [ignore olcott spam

<ur1547$2a7g6$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=8275&group=sci.logic#8275

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.network!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs [ignore olcott spam
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 04:08:55 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <ur1547$2a7g6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ur09d3$21cvb$1@dont-email.me>
<ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:08:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bdb98c956602a77ebf923813c034c886";
logging-data="2432518"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zNs7YcDKMAMztBwGNKJVB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E8diun7BhCY5LRT6vUwnIEfboMA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me>
 by: immibis - Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:08 UTC

On 19/02/24 20:36, olcott wrote:
> On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-19 11:28:19 +0000, Ben Bacarisse said:
>>
>>> Conversely, the classical proof by contradiction seems to lead a lot of
>>> non-mathematical students astray.
>>
>> Therefore i'd prefer a direct proof, e.g., if M is a Turing machine
>> then M is not a halt decider for Turing machines.
>>
>
> That is isomorphic to the Tarski Undefinability theorem proof:
> If a truth predicate exists then
> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
> correctly returns true or false.
>
> That technical people are clueless about analytical truth makers
> means that they lack the basis to correctly evaluate these things.
>

The fact that M is not a halt decider for Turing machines is completely
unrelated to Tarski's undefinability theorem, and "analytical truth
maker" is something you made up.

Re: Linz's proofs [ignore olcott spam

<ur17dd$38ebk$14@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=8289&group=sci.logic#8289

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs [ignore olcott spam
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:47:57 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ur17dd$38ebk$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ur09d3$21cvb$1@dont-email.me>
<ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me> <ur1547$2a7g6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:47:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="3422580"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ur1547$2a7g6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 20 Feb 2024 03:47 UTC

On 2/19/24 10:08 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 19/02/24 20:36, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-19 11:28:19 +0000, Ben Bacarisse said:
>>>
>>>> Conversely, the classical proof by contradiction seems to lead a lot of
>>>> non-mathematical students astray.
>>>
>>> Therefore i'd prefer a direct proof, e.g., if M is a Turing machine
>>> then M is not a halt decider for Turing machines.
>>>
>>
>> That is isomorphic to the Tarski Undefinability theorem proof:
>> If a truth predicate exists then
>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>> correctly returns true or false.
>>
>> That technical people are clueless about analytical truth makers
>> means that they lack the basis to correctly evaluate these things.
>>
>
> The fact that M is not a halt decider for Turing machines is completely
> unrelated to Tarski's undefinability theorem, and "analytical truth
> maker" is something you made up.

"Truthmaker Theory" is a real thing, but seems to be way out in the
metaphysics space.

Olcott seems to be trying to tie the term "Truthmaker" with the idea
that Analytic Logic works by DEFINING that things are Analytically True
if they follow from a connection to the fundamental "Truthmakers" of the
system.

Of course, in Analytical Theory, there is no arguement about
"Truthmakers" are presumed by the definitions. It is only the
non-analytic metaphysicians that argue if all truth is tied to truthmakers.

So, just another of Peters ignorance of what he is talking about.

Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]

<ur2c8n$2hdll$5@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=8317&group=sci.logic#8317

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:16:55 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <ur2c8n$2hdll$5@dont-email.me>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ur09d3$21cvb$1@dont-email.me>
<ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me> <ur2aeo$2hav8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d05f944c24d8a6d4b3a5e288851d8127";
logging-data="2668213"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19r0nKTfqI6JLT1haainjjr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NWxqMqmzMXl9BAwgjWqEP4fKUiA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ur2aeo$2hav8$1@dont-email.me>
 by: olcott - Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:16 UTC

On 2/20/2024 7:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-02-19 19:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-19 11:28:19 +0000, Ben Bacarisse said:
>>>
>>>> Conversely, the classical proof by contradiction seems to lead a lot of
>>>> non-mathematical students astray.
>>>
>>> Therefore i'd prefer a direct proof, e.g., if M is a Turing machine
>>> then M is not a halt decider for Turing machines.
>>>
>>
>> That is isomorphic to the Tarski Undefinability theorem proof:
>> If a truth predicate exists then
>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>> correctly returns true or false.
>
> Tarski wrote to readers who do understand indirect proofs.
>

Do you understand that the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]

<ur3nc4$2puc4$6@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=8327&group=sci.logic#8327

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs [ignore epistemological antinomies]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 03:32:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <ur3nc4$2puc4$6@dont-email.me>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ur09d3$21cvb$1@dont-email.me>
<ur0aj6$21a3a$1@dont-email.me> <ur2aeo$2hav8$1@dont-email.me>
<ur2c8n$2hdll$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 02:32:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bd66dd1769145309bc404eb2db501efb";
logging-data="2947460"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hQg4T0e/f19u0HKlNJsS0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fq0QV8uDAS3UichX2QpX2OSZGu8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ur2c8n$2hdll$5@dont-email.me>
 by: immibis - Wed, 21 Feb 2024 02:32 UTC

On 20/02/24 15:16, olcott wrote:
> On 2/20/2024 7:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-02-19 19:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/19/2024 1:15 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-02-19 11:28:19 +0000, Ben Bacarisse said:
>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, the classical proof by contradiction seems to lead a
>>>>> lot of
>>>>> non-mathematical students astray.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore i'd prefer a direct proof, e.g., if M is a Turing machine
>>>> then M is not a halt decider for Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is isomorphic to the Tarski Undefinability theorem proof:
>>> If a truth predicate exists then
>>> Boolean True(English, "This sentence is not true.")
>>> correctly returns true or false.
>>
>> Tarski wrote to readers who do understand indirect proofs.
>>
>
> Do you understand that the Liar Paradox is neither true nor false?

Do you understand that the Liar Paradox is not a Turing machine, but
H-hat is a Turing machine?

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor