Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

It's the Magic that counts. -- Larry Wall on Perl's apparent ugliness


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

SubjectAuthor
* Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
+* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|+* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|| `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||   `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||    `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||     `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||      `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||       `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||        `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
||         `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
||          `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|`- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningJeff Barnett
+* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
| `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|   +* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|   |`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|   | `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningAndré G. Isaak
|   |  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|   |   `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|   `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|    `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|     `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
|      `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningolcott
|       `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoningRichard Damon
+* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
| `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical unRichard Damon
|   `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|    `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|     `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|      `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|       `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|        `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|         `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|          `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|           `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|            `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|             `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|              `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|               `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|                `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|                 `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|                  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
|                   `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
|                    `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
 +* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
 |`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
 | `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
 |  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
 |   `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
 |    `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
 |     `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer scienceRichard Damon
 |      `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
 |       `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
 `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  +* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
  |`* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  | `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
  |  `* Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [olcott
  |   `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [Richard Damon
  `- Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undisBen

Pages:123
Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning

<yP2dnYf2tfEcR-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8771&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8771

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.lang.semantics
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:24:01 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 17:23:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.lang.semantics
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8RwfK.18499$L_b6.16718@fx33.iad>
<SZqdnb9xZ_aAAuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <u5yfK.129$YFJb.83@fx04.iad>
<p5udnQou4pydKOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DpzfK.8209$pqKf.1571@fx12.iad>
<jdqdnUA8k9lxWOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <l6AfK.119$XhAf.78@fx39.iad>
<mKudnVWIM_TzTuP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yLAfK.9276$pqKf.4401@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <yLAfK.9276$pqKf.4401@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <yP2dnYf2tfEcR-P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 242
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-GcWpWjIoz5ZhNDaF8ADAgOFQQaHMtGWBB/FrIZs24krTADUxGpC7yhrGPvq3OQY538bnlrBhdv5Q9OC!ACvpLqSP0zupFhNvS8Y7h9pYIDZN4fI+t7yuwI9pGjpzmu1Gv2+8V7u+15UX8tRKt7rDTC3m04k=
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: 11042
 by: olcott - Fri, 13 May 2022 22:23 UTC

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


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8772&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8772

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

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


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

<HbadncJ5hvU6euP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8773&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8773

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

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


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

<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8774&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8774

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8775&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8775

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

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


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8776&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8776

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8777&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8777

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8778&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8778

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8779&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8779

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

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8780&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8780

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.

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

<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8781&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8781

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8782&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8782

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8783&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8783

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 251
Message-ID: <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:59:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11752
X-Original-Bytes: 11618
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 14:59 UTC

On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can
>>>>>>>>>> do what the
>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their
>>>>>>> reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is
>>>>>>> broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with
>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need
>>>>>> to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical
>>>>> foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any of
>>>>> the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply taking
>>>>> for granted that they are all these underpinnings are infallibly
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>>>>
>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics
>>>> (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>
>>>
>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over everyone's
>>> head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather than most
>>> elegant bare essence.
>>
>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding
>> what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper).
>>
>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes that
>> were published after his death. If he really believed in this
>> statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he actually
>> would of published it.
>>
>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an
>> error in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or he
>> found his logic error and thus stopped believing in that statement.
>>
>
> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before I
> ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that his
> reasoning is correct.

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

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

>
> His full quote is on page 6
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the
> exact same view as mine:
>
>    'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>     in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>     means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>
> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)

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

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

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

WRONG.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRONG. You are again confalating KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.

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

WRONG.

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

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


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

<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8784&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8784

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:32:39 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:32:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 309
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iNXPZPC9c85szqAW5t1qolJuJLlD+SRNhjI9KwI/unF7rBtgNMwOvJ960ki/cdXUK+NQd7PgNGXF/zr!wC5nkjgRiNFgqpalCIy3c1wHXuR+I69L/jOWZanVcQIdlHPLdlMcbVLzMVlYB4RQfQDwwxDwEHY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 14500
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 15:32 UTC

On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can
>>>>>>>>>>> do what the
>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in
>>>>>>>> their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself
>>>>>>>> is broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with
>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need
>>>>>>> to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>>>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>>>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical
>>>>>> foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any
>>>>>> of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply
>>>>>> taking for granted that they are all these underpinnings are
>>>>>> infallibly correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics
>>>>> (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather
>>>> than most elegant bare essence.
>>>
>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding
>>> what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper).
>>>
>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes that
>>> were published after his death. If he really believed in this
>>> statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he actually
>>> would of published it.
>>>
>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an
>>> error in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or he
>>> found his logic error and thus stopped believing in that statement.
>>>
>>
>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before I
>> ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that his
>> reasoning is correct.
>
> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>

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

> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>
>>
>> His full quote is on page 6
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have
>> the exact same view as mine:
>>
>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>
>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>
> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved
> to be true.
>

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

> If needs to be taken as an assumption, it is not something that IS
> unconditionally true.
>
>>
>> There are only two possible ways that any ANALYTICALLY expression of
>> language can possibly be true:
>> (1) It is stipulated to be true. // like an axiom
>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1)
>> or the consequences of (2).         // like sound deduction
>
> WRONG.
>
> There are only two possible ways that they can be ANALYTICALLY true.
>

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

>>
>> Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
>> completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its
>> meaning without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.
>
> And there are other truths besides Analytic Truth. That is implied by
> the need of the adjective.


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8785&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8785

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 11:33:12 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7340
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 15:33 UTC

On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>
>>>> Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.
>>>
>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem.  The two
>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally defined,
>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>>> an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will
>>> finish running,  or continue to run forever.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>
>
> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
> computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
> proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.
>
> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
> accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this input
> actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a halt decider
> must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of these two must go
> or computer science remains inconsistent.
>
> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
> the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>
> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the contradictions
> are somehow resolved at a level higher than their current understanding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8786&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8786

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 375
Message-ID: <e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:42:50 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 17332
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 16:42 UTC

On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can
>>>>>>>>>>>> do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that
>>>>>>>>>>>> D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you
>>>>>>>>>> know that
>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in
>>>>>>>>> their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth
>>>>>>>>> itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with
>>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need
>>>>>>>> to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>>>>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>>>>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical
>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any
>>>>>>> of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply
>>>>>>> taking for granted that they are all these underpinnings are
>>>>>>> infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding
>>>> what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper).
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes that
>>>> were published after his death. If he really believed in this
>>>> statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he actually
>>>> would of published it.
>>>>
>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an
>>>> error in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or he
>>>> found his logic error and thus stopped believing in that statement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before
>>> I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that
>>> his reasoning is correct.
>>
>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>
>
> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his reasoning.
>
>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>>
>>>
>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have
>>> the exact same view as mine:
>>>
>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>
>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>
>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved
>> to be true.
>>
>
> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it is
> true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are both
> true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
> deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
> expressions of language.

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.

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


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

<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8787&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8787

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 11:52:53 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 11:52:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 163
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Qldk3RdJI/ZcWTd+oQhvnvkvfDMRjlyYSRpzlXGx7D7LtDJ0uvXjpIfw2nOOTNUh2nmcSxmnubHdlPH!IId1v1JxD3oVZH1Z73hq45nf4m90Kj4JuYjwbDJB3aU/W844+RXy0FWnWu3WV1lZFc93K0g/k5I=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9345
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 16:52 UTC

On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>>>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>>>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation.
>>>>
>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem.  The two
>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally
>>>>> defined,
>>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>>>> an input, whether the program *specified by this description* will
>>>> finish running,  or continue to run forever.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>>
>>
>> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
>> computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
>> proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.
>>
>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
>> accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>> input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a halt
>> decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of these
>> two must go or computer science remains inconsistent.
>>
>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
>> the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>>
>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the
>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their
>> current understanding.
>
> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent,
> unless you require that Halting be computable.
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Right? That is a very straight forward definition, and all Inputs have a
> well defined and definite output. No Machine + Input can do both be
> Halting and Non-Halting, or fail to be at least one of Halting or
> Non-Halting. (Either then number of steps processed halts at a finite
> number in a final state or counts to an unbounded number).
>
> A Decider, always maps an input (in its domain) to an output (in its
> range). The quesiton of the Halting Problem is does there exist a
> Decider that its input -> output map matches the Halting Mapping.
>
> Since a decider in this case is a Turing Machine, we know that its input
> is a string in a given alphabet, so the question comes, can we alway
> express a Turing Machine as a finite string representation, and the
> answer to that is YES. (Maybe not in all alphabets, but there exist
> alphabets that can express them).
>
> This is because BY DEFINITON, a Turing Machine has a finite number of
> states, and accepts a tape with a finite alphabet, thus we have a finite
> number of states * a fintie number if symbols at the tape head giving a
> finite number of cases specifying a finite state, a finite symbol, and a
> binary tape motion. This is thus expressable in a finite string.
>
> Thus we can ALWAYS convert the input to the Halting Mapping into some
> input that FULLY EXPRESSES what the input is, thus there exists machines
> with a range that expresses ALL possible Turing Machine + Input
> possibilities. We actually knew that before from the existence of the
> Universal Turing Machine, which takes as its input such a description.
>
> Thus, if a given machine can't "understand" its input as such a machine
> in some cases, the error is in that particular machine, not the
> specification.
>
> Now, yes, it is still possible that no machine can actually compute such
> a mapping, but that is the question itself. Your error is you seem to be
> presuming that the definition of a Halt Decider requires that such a
> machine actually exist, which it doesn't.
>
> It is the same as you idea that the Truth of a statement requires that a
> Proof or Refutation exist, which it doesn't. (We are allowed to have
> Unknown and even Unknowable Truths).
>
> There is no conflict, just the fact that such a machine can not exist.
>
>>
>>> You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic,
>>> or of Truth.
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that
>>> program can't be specified to the "decider", then the decider just
>>> fails to be an answer to the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I can trivially write a "correct" halt decider by just
>>> defining that it can accept a very limited set of encoded programs
>>> (like none with backward jumps), and then I can easily decide if they
>>> will halt or not.
>>>
>>> This example shows the incorrectness of YOUR (false) definition.
>>>
>>> You just continue to prove your ignorance of the field.
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8788&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8788

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:25:12 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:25:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 397
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hnvLS9uUF4xmgIht+Bb/m37XDXPRVHkUxfK2Y5lG4YBY4abUzs0WxUqHiRO99WWnTGqzchYY2ynx542!fV5InweulNitXKj3cn8b6QafZrMvtKxRY2TIHaoydKLRj4I+2uRXLd7vvX+GtUdHI0uM6dnCOlQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 18646
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 17:25 UTC

On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you
>>>>>>>>>>> know that
>>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in
>>>>>>>>>> their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth
>>>>>>>>>> itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent
>>>>>>>>> with the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you
>>>>>>>>> need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>>>>>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>>>>>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the philosophical
>>>>>>>> foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of any
>>>>>>>> of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things, simply
>>>>>>>> taking for granted that they are all these underpinnings are
>>>>>>>> infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding
>>>>> what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper).
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes that
>>>>> were published after his death. If he really believed in this
>>>>> statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he actually
>>>>> would of published it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an
>>>>> error in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or
>>>>> he found his logic error and thus stopped believing in that statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before
>>>> I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that
>>>> his reasoning is correct.
>>>
>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>
>>
>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>> reasoning.
>>
>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have
>>>> the exact same view as mine:
>>>>
>>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>>
>>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>>
>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>> proved to be true.
>>>
>>
>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it
>> is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are
>> both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
>> deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
>> expressions of language.
>
> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8789&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8789

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:18:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10507
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 20:18 UTC

On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you
>>>>>>>>>>>> know that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical
>>>>>>>>>>> incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in
>>>>>>>>>>> their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>> with the system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you
>>>>>>>>>> need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic
>>>>>>>>> systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning when
>>>>>>>>> examined at the very high level abstraction of the
>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of
>>>>>>>>> any of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things,
>>>>>>>>> simply taking for granted that they are all these underpinnings
>>>>>>>>> are infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you
>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not
>>>>>> understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the
>>>>>> paper).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes
>>>>>> that were published after his death. If he really believed in this
>>>>>> statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he
>>>>>> actually would of published it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was an
>>>>>> error in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved or
>>>>>> he found his logic error and thus stopped believing in that
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly
>>>>> before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct
>>>>> knowledge that his reasoning is correct.
>>>>
>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>> reasoning.
>>>
>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein
>>>>> have the exact same view as mine:
>>>>>
>>>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>>>
>>>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>>>
>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it
>>> is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are
>>> both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true (sound
>>> deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
>>> expressions of language.
>>
>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>
>
> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk
> about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.


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

<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8790&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8790

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:02:59 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:02:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 226
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1kqW+inJli6t2uzsV/Dtlq2zLvRiJvXk4QnXsTRcD2lfxmbLbfEVHeRedGxEicth+fsJYiy5q1Koi0v!aP431n9KQixcZROCJRDq1b8HGyEcKLrQVvpWyDaVsadvOZvEByV+6bZRgTb4AaqtwdySQnAdHz0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 11804
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:02 UTC

On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>> gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>> with the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you
>>>>>>>>>>> need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how
>>>>>>>>>> logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reasoning
>>>>>>>>>> when examined at the very high level abstraction of the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation of the notion of (analytic) truth
>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of
>>>>>>>>>> any of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things,
>>>>>>>>>> simply taking for granted that they are all these
>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings are infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you
>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not
>>>>>>> understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read
>>>>>>> the paper).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes
>>>>>>> that were published after his death. If he really believed in
>>>>>>> this statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he
>>>>>>> actually would of published it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was
>>>>>>> an error in his logic that he worked on and either never resolved
>>>>>>> or he found his logic error and thus stopped believing in that
>>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly
>>>>>> before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct
>>>>>> knowledge that his reasoning is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>> reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein
>>>>>> have the exact same view as mine:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>>>>
>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that
>>>> it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that
>>>> are both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true
>>>> (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other true
>>>> expressions of language.
>>>
>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>
>>
>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.
>
> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>
> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical
> proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8791&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8791

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 255
Message-ID: <IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:15:19 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12723
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:15 UTC

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century
>>>>>>>>>>>> behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how
>>>>>>>>>>> logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning when examined at the very high level abstraction of
>>>>>>>>>>> the philosophical foundation of the notion of (analytic)
>>>>>>>>>>> truth itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of
>>>>>>>>>>> any of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things,
>>>>>>>>>>> simply taking for granted that they are all these
>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings are infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you
>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>>>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not
>>>>>>>> understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read
>>>>>>>> the paper).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>>>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes
>>>>>>>> that were published after his death. If he really believed in
>>>>>>>> this statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he
>>>>>>>> actually would of published it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was
>>>>>>>> an error in his logic that he worked on and either never
>>>>>>>> resolved or he found his logic error and thus stopped believing
>>>>>>>> in that statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly
>>>>>>> before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct
>>>>>>> knowledge that his reasoning is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein
>>>>>>> have the exact same view as mine:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>>>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>>>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that
>>>>> it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that
>>>>> are both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be true
>>>>> (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to other
>>>>> true expressions of language.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.
>>
>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>
>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
>> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>
>
> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>
>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>
>
> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is
> excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense
> organs.
>


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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8792&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8792

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 17:28:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7653
X-Original-Bytes: 7520
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:28 UTC

On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem
>>>>> definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a
>>>>> decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a
>>>>> computation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem.  The two
>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally
>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>>> and an input, whether the program *specified by this description*
>>>>> will finish running,  or continue to run forever.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then
>>> computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively
>>> proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning.
>>>
>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an
>>> accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>> input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a
>>> halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of
>>> these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent.
>>>
>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to take
>>> the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>>>
>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the
>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their
>>> current understanding.
>>
>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
> corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
> computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
> criteria are incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note, DEFINITIONS CAN NOT BE INVALID.

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

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

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

<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8793&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8793

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:48:28 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:48:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 285
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-cC8DOGtSQCu/cfHssbwWGfqeEGoFdng/7b+DYWIl1i/FcQ9ytmtAU1JnQ/9/ELwOmgKLfcpDaaHOUJD!TJKyzepHV5bxPv4O63rI9ARHSOy2mg2n/SllD4lbvW0ML29Uzgvc8sMkxinUAO4MdRZO5nXBI1E=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 14331
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:48 UTC

On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm can do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning when examined at the very high level abstraction
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the philosophical foundation of the notion of (analytic)
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling of
>>>>>>>>>>>> any of the key philosophical underpinnings of these things,
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply taking for granted that they are all these
>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings are infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is totally
>>>>>>>>>>>> invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book mathematician.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you
>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that
>>>>>>>>>>> century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>>>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>>>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not
>>>>>>>>> understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read
>>>>>>>>> the paper).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>>>>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes
>>>>>>>>> that were published after his death. If he really believed in
>>>>>>>>> this statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that he
>>>>>>>>> actually would of published it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there was
>>>>>>>>> an error in his logic that he worked on and either never
>>>>>>>>> resolved or he found his logic error and thus stopped believing
>>>>>>>>> in that statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly
>>>>>>>> before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct
>>>>>>>> knowledge that his reasoning is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>> have the exact same view as mine:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>>>>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>>>>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that
>>>>>> it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language
>>>>>> that are both true and neither stipulated as true or proven to be
>>>>>> true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic connections to
>>>>>> other true expressions of language.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>>>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.
>>>
>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>
>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
>>> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>
>>
>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>
>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>
>>
>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that
>> is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the
>> sense organs.
>>
>
> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>
>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in
>>> the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically
>>> True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth
>>> Bearer.
>>>
>>
>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings
>> proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>
>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be
>> found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search
>> to find.
>
> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't
> have a Proof.
>


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

<a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8794&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8794

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:53:26 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 16:53:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 154
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-scSGBpWOI6izlcewIYPGaRGuBPcJlAHI0//tmEVpFIeVitGQaSzL/MxRxi07FbLHj8tcVWJB6U6z4Ov!45w2UcVNgJ9IuHkEgnMWq4uOA2RBleUWhRtmjm4miUXAAA/nJDr5di6Y1cgiK+fPkxLGzzhtVNE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8666
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 21:53 UTC

On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
>>>>>>>> rare cases that no one never noticed before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by
>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>> by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are
>>>>>>> not) is
>>>>>>> indeed undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting
>>>>>> problem definition so that it does not diverge from the definition
>>>>>> of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a
>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem.  The two
>>>>>>> notions of "computation" and "halt decider", as conventionally
>>>>>>> defined,
>>>>>>> are contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The corrected halting problem definition*
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>>>> and an input, whether the program *specified by this description*
>>>>>> will finish running,  or continue to run forever.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ computer science is inconsistent ]
>>>> If two definitions within computer science contradict each other
>>>> then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus
>>>> conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct
>>>> reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> If all halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to
>>>> an accept/reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that this
>>>> input actually specifies and the halting problem specifies that a
>>>> halt decider must compute the mapping from non-inputs, then one of
>>>> these two must go or computer science remains inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> learned-by-rote people that only know things by-the-book tend to
>>>> take the gospel of textbooks as holy words contradictions and all.
>>>>
>>>> Like with religious people they tend to believe that the
>>>> contradictions are somehow resolved at a level higher than their
>>>> current understanding.
>>>
>>> Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT
>>> inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable.
>>>
>>
>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
>> corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> The halting criteria are defined such that they diverge from the
>> definition of a decider and they also diverge form the definition of a
>> computable function in some rare cases. In these cases the halting
>> criteria are incorrect.
>
> You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as
> a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of
> a decider.

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8795&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8795

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:50:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15189
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 14 May 2022 22:50 UTC

On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Validity and Soundness*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned, so you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better find another topic you don't know about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt status for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is now dead obvious that you accept that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm can do what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world calls "decide halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip distractions>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   That is, in the context of C-like code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that D(X,Y) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know...  I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really expect an answer.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be the end of you bragging about halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All undecidable problems always have very well hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of truth itself is broken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistent with the system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your failure to understand this just shows you are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning when examined at the very high level abstraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the philosophical foundation of the notion of (analytic)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ittgensteinW had the exact same issue with mathematicians
>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned-by-rote by-the-book without the slightest inkling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any of the key philosophical underpinnings of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things, simply taking for granted that they are all these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings are infallibly correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When these underpinnings are incorrect this error is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally invisible to every learned-by-rote by-the-book
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make
>>>>>>>>>>>> you right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> that century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics (and thought it not valuable)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over
>>>>>>>>>>> everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than most elegant bare essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not
>>>>>>>>>> understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read
>>>>>>>>>> the paper).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have
>>>>>>>>>> intensly studied), this statement is solely from private notes
>>>>>>>>>> that were published after his death. If he really believed in
>>>>>>>>>> this statement as was sure of it, it would seem natural that
>>>>>>>>>> he actually would of published it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems likely that he had some nagging thought that there
>>>>>>>>>> was an error in his logic that he worked on and either never
>>>>>>>>>> resolved or he found his logic error and thus stopped
>>>>>>>>>> believing in that statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly
>>>>>>>>> before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct
>>>>>>>>> knowledge that his reasoning is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his
>>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of
>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His full quote is on page 6
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>> have the exact same view as mine:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     'True in Russell's system' means, as was said: proved
>>>>>>>>>      in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system'
>>>>>>>>>      means:the opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be
>>>>>>>> proved to be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof
>>>>>>> that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of
>>>>>>> language that are both true and neither stipulated as true or
>>>>>>> proven to be true (sound deduction) on the basis of semantic
>>>>>>> connections to other true expressions of language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever
>>>>> talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you
>>>> can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a
>>>> meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK great this is a key agreement between us.
>>>
>>>> Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
>>>> Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that
>>> is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the
>>> sense organs.
>>>
>>
>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>
>>>> It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in
>>>> the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically
>>>> True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth
>>>> Bearer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings
>>> proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.
>>>
>>> I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can
>>> be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite
>>> search to find.
>>
>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>> don't have a Proof.
>>
>
> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology.
> When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not
> exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the
> expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then
> it is still true.


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor