On 5/13/22 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/22 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2022 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/22 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/22 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 5:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 4:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 2:06 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2022 6:05 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foundation of analytical truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why have you not had anything published?  Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows why, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people will understand that I have corrected errors in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects of the basic foundations of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six
>>>>>>>>>>>>> months, yet people very persistently insisted on simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring the easily verifiable facts for this whole six
>>>>>>>>>>>>> month period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other
>>>>>>>>>>> measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the
>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting
>>>>>>>>>> Mapping is defined differently.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the
>>>>>>>>>> problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is
>>>>>>>>> not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot
>>>>>>>>> prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him
>>>>>>>>> that the liar paradox is simply untrue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some
>>>>>>>>> rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer
>>>>>>>>> science decider that requires all deciders to compute the
>>>>>>>>> mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the
>>>>>>>>> definition of the halting problem criteria is incorrect in
>>>>>>>>> these (previously undiscovered) rare cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking
>>>>>>>> about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a naive thing to say.
>>>>>>> This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the
>>>>>>> same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way
>>>>>>> that truth actually works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of
>>>>> correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how
>>> symbolic logic diverges from this.
>>
>> IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then
>> you are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the
>> rules.
>
> When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that
> they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect.

The rules of logic ARE the rules of logic. PERIOD.

If you disagree with what the logic says, fine, you reject those fields
of logic as useful. Others disagree.

Most others will say that YOU are incorrect.

>
>>
>> If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its
>> head, you really need to be working in the fields that deal with the
>> core basics of how logic works.
>>
>
> This issue is the philosophical foundation of logic is inconsistent.

But it IS the foundation of logic.

If you want to try to come up with something better, go ahead, work on it.

>
>> Comutation Theory and the Halting Problem is NOT where to try to
>> change those things. The fact that you even think it is tends to be a
>> pretty good sign that you don't really understand what you are talking
>> about.
>>
>> My guess is that if you actually had an idea of that level, you needed
>> to start decades ago in the right places for THAT sort of discussion.
>>
>
> I started in 1997. The HP is the only concrete example where all of the
> details of the error in the philosophical foundation of logic can be
> shown in all of its complete detail as actually fully operational code.

Then you don't understand your logic well enough.

The Halting Problems is likely THOUSANDS of steps removed from the
foundation assumptions of the Formal Logic of the system it is built on.

>
> Every other way of proving my point has gaps in reasoning that have been
> hard-wired into the conventional definitions of terms of the art.

I think it shows that there are gaps in YOUR understanding of the issue.
Most of the stuff that you have tried to point out seems to be stuff
that has been out there for most of a century, and the errors in it found.

You want all truth to be provable, it has been shown that this can only
hold in the simpler logic systems. by NECESSITY, more complicated logic
operations expand the region of "Truth" faster than the region of
"Provable", so we get stuff that can be true, but not proven, and
incompleteness of the system.

It turns out that most of the very useful logic systems have crossed
that line, so have decided that the greater reasoning power is worth
being incomplete.

>
> When I try to correct these errors people simply assume that I do not
> correctly know the proper definition.

Which you are proved that you don't know.

>
>> As it is, you claim to have very limited time, and have ruined any
>> reputation that you might have hoped to have, so you are proably
>> doomed to fail at establishing any sort of new class of logic based on
>> your ideas.
>>