Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.


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 [ philosophiRichard 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 sRichard 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 [ previouslyBen

Pages:123
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ]
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 22:56 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad> <27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad> <daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad> <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:56:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5975
View all headers
On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.

Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.


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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of a decider.

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

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


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:21 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:21:04 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:21:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 345
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4BGI03D/+2msmX+9j7ScW2Sjx9bsgG+BaS9AwikK8dGtqCNGDQeow9vcFmuYhJTp+uw6obLb1HlNFan!knwV7I8cDmf4cXjlUZftvlZwj3xVLpf0/EK4yCuTyQeC2KfdxPpZv10ggFgBUC84OdbDAclUQ0M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 16899
View all headers
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

(2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.
This is the same system that Prolog uses.

The reason that I keep referring to the Tarski proof is it essentially the exact same proof Gödel after Gödel has been simplified 100,000-fold.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:33 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:33:09 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:33:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
<a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 106
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KOOCSR/qjkbWnAsge4EaJBTO8uqymHjm/MnVlem+0TCsc9eFL3dGGyArcF3VxSKGJlTi2FC6KRQEH7h!a5YXEZ2fDjEdgfwIi4i0idcDDYZR85Xa/w2MXDwLYVbYZ4cnqIXE13Z6xPsivmaJu7BDYwBXJgU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6742
X-Received-Bytes: 6833
View all headers
On 5/14/2022 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.

Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.


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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of a decider.

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

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

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:52 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 389
Message-ID: <BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 19:52:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 18906
View all headers
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

(2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.
This is the same system that Prolog uses.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ]
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:53 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
computer science is inconsistent ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<g3PfK.5588$56e6.2671@fx34.iad>
<27mdnVT4j4ocX-L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YYPfK.3196$dLI5.6@fx48.iad>
<daCdnWpD2cv4Q-L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J9VfK.572$cvmb.278@fx06.iad>
<a5mdnXM0hclLuR3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<vsWfK.23702$JSxf.937@fx11.iad>
<Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Wf6dnernkN6ooR3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <BhXfK.1975$NMxb.1577@fx02.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 19:53:06 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6538
View all headers
On 5/14/22 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.

Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.


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

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


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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of a decider.

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

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

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


Nope, just you making Herring in Red sauce.

You are just proving your ignorance.


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 04:07 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:07:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 23:07:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 296
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sNTnISAPDFZZe8evGP1cApIj7Iv9Vq7P/v1m87ccVbnITh60hgDfpK+hkX59wApRE0FQY8PQ4i7+FEp!JLlNc0CBmGkZ7+FlZi/ulGsFDPlNYPPWDNCuYH6ple8gBmviuIjCUYp4pmOGqR86BYqgQ9zNBJ4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 15866
View all headers
On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

(2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 11:16 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 305
Message-ID: <_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 07:16:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 16116
View all headers
On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

(2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 03:02 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:02:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:02:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 65
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JQRnOvN1qj39TT57ikW2xqCRbubEkzKMthypdSt+DtEpswHh5cStapl7olZzL9IqSoSP5kuXIqS90Eg!Zyz3n346MzroT9lKGnBj88Iaae1U/n2IN0TQ9aRFzh36rbxfEO2Mlo8cQlbK8TutLUfGsg/MRSU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4525
View all headers
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

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

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

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

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

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




--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 03:11 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:11:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 22:11:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.lang.prolog
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 325
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pSiYgmLvsdo/TaNKsnX0nd1jYPdTQufZEuCjoK3gU8sIs50wlUOudUJmmv5g1997DrhXnFQlr/GWAOG!q1Web3VYuQuMfQIN/sPosAi1W+7GMJnXYgvG5IKMqsFVn0W39J/wVmalq6hPvR7P2xlF1yFn3Ro=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 17291
X-Received-Bytes: 17384
View all headers
On 5/15/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

(2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated to be true.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 11:28 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.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 [
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>
<QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
<WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 340
Message-ID: <HL4hK.9995$dLI5.9942@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 07:28:39 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 17801
View all headers
On 5/17/22 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 12:27 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.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>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 08:27:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4791
View all headers
On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

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

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

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

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

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





If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.

You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.

It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a Turing Machine.

If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:01 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:01:07 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:01:06 -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 [
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>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
<WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HL4hK.9995$dLI5.9942@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <HL4hK.9995$dLI5.9942@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <_MSdnQBkFdOulxj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 363
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9ZYgsxIJfVKHo46pMW95Dei7paT7igqK1s3b5+t07waGphpa4N9XPpQ23dMgMQhnVlsVv9g0elS4MHB!8ESPFqTtmSYSemOT7GI2ma9cfPmtmOwalgG+tPOnRnqiohAJd3l2xX3iuyDbleboTwXGOck8S0U=
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: 19257
View all headers
On 5/18/2022 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/17/22 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible?  (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: Ben
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:20 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:20:16 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <87k0aiq34f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="597d063fbc8ca8a46b66c867b46b89b8";
logging-data="27297"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FpaExZcEZL6SfQW50zAPGPubzb7pwQwU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dHPitJqb6BeBYW1LAs1+2AHbH78=
sha1:yjPmzUMwDWYznfVQBqZ8HgX1YUg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.3c332a062d4e6a0db0c8.20220518162016BST.87k0aiq34f.fsf@bsb.me.uk
View all headers
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

Then H is not a halt decider:

That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard
to avoid taking about.

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

X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X
and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data).  The two
"input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computation that D
is supposed to tell up about (and which you now accept, albeit
implicitly, that it can't).

No one cares about anything else that can be determined by examining X
and Y other than whether the call X(Y) is finite or not.  At least you
are now 100% clear that H is not deciding anything we care about.

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


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 15:37 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:37:10 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 10:37:09 -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 [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <WNWdnTE3x_87jxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 98
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-v8EeKUlelIisnhHYTz7rl5iK7/6N4tgwa3qCmGf+FuFeEZFjHPPqWXucQWSm97pnv0Vo8FO1ByU9kc5!a9777sVCTayyfKTVF9hfzqmaT73wVmWcrNLVauIu4OexaP6YPYav9KyuiIZQlbtCadDoBCbQVhI=
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: 5685
View all headers
On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

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

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

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

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

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





If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.


H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.

You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.

It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a Turing Machine.


int sum(int x, int y)
{
   return x + y;
}


H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).

If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 23:09 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.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 [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad>
<WNWdnTE3x_87jxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <WNWdnTE3x_87jxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <q0fhK.10714$tTK.8803@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: Wed, 18 May 2022 19:09:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5702
X-Original-Bytes: 5569
View all headers
On 5/18/22 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

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

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

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

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

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





If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.


H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.

Only if H isn't a Halting Decider.

Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct.

DEFINITION.


You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.

It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a Turing Machine.


int sum(int x, int y)
{
   return x + y;
}


H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).

So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to the Halting Problem?

That just PROVES the Theorem you are trying to disprove.


If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.





Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 23:35 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 18:35:33 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 18:35:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [
previously undiscovered rare cases ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <BYmdnex8k6nsDuP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r14xw8d8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NJWdnQKVkZ1EJOP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lev5w47b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QOidnVv4COaIVeP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfpdujf0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87mtfluh8s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <f8ednb12fY6bb-P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o801t0qa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7bedneKhFMz8vuL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilq8tu3p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <6s-dnT3oyMZpKOL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad>
<WNWdnTE3x_87jxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<q0fhK.10714$tTK.8803@fx97.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <q0fhK.10714$tTK.8803@fx97.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <gOidnbxCVp5YHxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 136
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Ed9l/zpSfM9FlG5f9t/G53qxaZfFyb0hubkxiX44+k8wwGDEEExnOSSYPsZn5jb7d3PNqplNsQvQlBJ!+ens5sDTodEKiYcvvYcfWGgljy9OEDA3+FvUCk2hcjke/tc45k9iJp034I/uNg/ommJytwpI/pA=
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: 6934
View all headers
On 5/18/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/18/22 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

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

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

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

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

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





If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.


H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.

Only if H isn't a Halting Decider.


Your definition of halt decider contradicts the definition of a decider and also contradicts the definition of a computation, thus is incorrect.

When we restrict the definition of a halt decider to a computation then H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation by a decider.

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

Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct.

DEFINITION.


You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.

It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a Turing Machine.


int sum(int x, int y)
{
   return x + y;
}


H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).

So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to the Halting Problem?

That just PROVES the Theorem you are trying to disprove.
 >>
If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.





--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, comp.lang.prolog
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 23:57 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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>
<zaWdnfAK_d2meeP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1LBfK.9402$pqKf.3925@fx12.iad>
<UbqdnW1GBuPWduP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YHCfK.9403$pqKf.3509@fx12.iad>
<aNCdnRE7BeAetOL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<1lOfK.4918$XhAf.2155@fx39.iad>
<-Y-dndeIzo9cIuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BgXfK.1974$NMxb.1827@fx02.iad>
<qYednSst4_Dh4R3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_h5gK.6869$j0D5.2592@fx09.iad>
<WsudnRqCqbhp_hn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HL4hK.9995$dLI5.9942@fx48.iad>
<_MSdnQBkFdOulxj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <_MSdnQBkFdOulxj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 369
Message-ID: <hJfhK.61519$qMI1.1844@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: Wed, 18 May 2022 19:57:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 19460
View all headers
On 5/18/22 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/18/2022 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/17/22 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2022 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/13/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/13/2022 6:01 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 3:46 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/13/2022 2:16 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

*Validity and Soundness*
Good plan.  You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you
better find another topic you don't know about.

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this
input actually specifies.
It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the
world calls "decide halting".

Tarski makes a similar mistake...

<snip distractions>

  That is, in the context of C-like code
that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is
true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise.
Do you now accept that this is not possible? (I know, I know...  I
don't really expect an answer.)

As expected, no answer.  You can't answer this because you know that
would be the end of you bragging about halting.


All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.


No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system.

If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system.

Your failure to understand this just shows you are a century behind in the knowledge of how Truth and Logic actually works.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


His full quote is on page 6
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel This is the key source of our agreement that makes Wittgenstein have the exact same view as mine:

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

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

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


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

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth.


I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that.

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true.

For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that it actually is True.


OK great this is a key agreement between us.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.


Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs.


FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)

It is possible that it is True, but totally unprovable, at least in the systems it is definied in, so it can NEVER be "Analytically True", but it is still True, and the conjure has ALWAYS been a Truth Bearer.


If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to find.

Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof.


So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.



The key point is that just because something isn't Analytically True, or Analytically refuted doesn't mean that the statement isn't a Truth Bearer.

Note also, There are true statements that are neither Analytically True or Emperically True. Those are distinctions made in fields of KNOWLEDGE, and only relate to catagorizing KNOWN Truths, or KNOWLEDGE. Epistemology, as you seem to like describing what you are talking about ISN'T about studying Truth, but KNOWLEDGE. A proper student of the field understands the difference, but you don't seem to be able to do that.

Epistemology does NOT define what is "True", only what is "Known". A Proper Epistemolist understand that there are things that are True that are outside knowledge.




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


If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. None-the-less there exists a connected set of semantic meanings that make it true or false even if they cannot be found in finite time.

But a non-finite chain of reasoning is NOT considered a proof, at least by the normal definitions of a proof.


I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.


Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?

So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until:

Click here to read the complete article
Subject: Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ]
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 00:02 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.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>
<87v8u7snuk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <kKOdnVKlQvjSpx3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmkfrnto.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <p4KdnYplOu1F_Bn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RC5hK.33657$6dof.20351@fx13.iad>
<WNWdnTE3x_87jxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<q0fhK.10714$tTK.8803@fx97.iad>
<gOidnbxCVp5YHxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <gOidnbxCVp5YHxj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <GOfhK.33762$6dof.26744@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 20:02:46 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7688
View all headers
On 5/18/22 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/18/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/18/22 11:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/18/2022 7:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/17/22 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/15/2022 7:18 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 6:20 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 5/14/2022 3:07 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because
it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some
rare cases that no one never noticed before.
Well that's pretty clear.  The halting problem, as defined by everyone
by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is
indeed undecidable.

Not at all.
So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that
D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise?

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

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

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y).

Not when they are correctly simulated by H.

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

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

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

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

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





If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either.


H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation.

Only if H isn't a Halting Decider.


Your definition of halt decider contradicts the definition of a decider and also contradicts the definition of a computation, thus is incorrect.

HOW?

A decider is a computation that halts for all inputs.

A Computation is a merely a model of calculation based on a well defined algorithm.



When we restrict the definition of a halt decider to a computation then H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation by a decider.

But that IS the question, can you actually make a Computation that can decide on the Halting Function. You don't get to change the Halting Function, you either get to make a Computation/Decider that computes it or you admit that it isn't possible.

THAT IS the question.


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


Right, an the question is is that mapping of (M,w) to the Halting Status of M applied to w computable.

If you say it can't be done because that mapping contradicts the meaning of a decider/compuation, then the answer is NO, the Halting Function is NOT computable.


Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct.

DEFINITION.


You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about.

It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a Representation of a Turing Machine.


int sum(int x, int y)
{
   return x + y;
}


H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).

So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to the Halting Problem?

That just PROVES the Theorem you are trying to disprove.

Yep, you are just proving that which you try to disprove by your own arguements.

If we can't even try to define a decider to do the job, then it can't be done.

 >>
If you arguement is that you can't decide on the behavior of a Turing Machine just from a representation of it as a computation, then you are just agreeing that the Halting Problem IS impossible to "Compute" even if you don't understand that is what you are saying.








Pages:123
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor