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:
>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True",
>>>>>> yes, but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it
>>>>>> True we can not use it to actually directly prove something else,
>>>>>> but it can be True).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be saying that the Collatz conjecture can not have a
>>>>>> Truth Value, because it has not been proven, even though it can be
>>>>>> proven that it must be either True of False?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can only be declared as having an unknown truth value.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which means it HAS a truth value of True or False but we don't know
>>>> which.
>>>>
>>>> That is VERY difffernt then it having neither, which is what you
>>>> have been claimiing (or at least what your words meant).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless and Until a (possibly unknown) connection exists between an
>>> expression of language back-chained by sound deductive inference
>>> steps to known truth, the expression is not true.
>>>
>>>> This shows your confusion between Truth and Knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Truth is about what actually IS
>>>>
>>>> Knowledge is about what we know about what is.
>>>
>>> None-the-less the sequence of inference steps must exist, analytical
>>> truth is parasitic.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely NOT. There does NOT need to be proof that something is true.
>>
>> IF you want to claim that, by YOUR definition, you need to actually
>> PROVE it.
>>
>
> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
> knowing those meanings.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>
> Every analytic expression of language (including math and logic) must be
> connected to it meaning showing that it is true OR IT IS NOT TRUE.
>
> Expressions of language that are not connected to their meaning are
> meaningless thus neither true nor false.

So, how do you use the meaning of the words in "The Square of the
Hypotonuse of a right triangle is equal to the sume of the squares of
the other two sides" to show it is true?

I think you will have problems.

>
>> And, you can't do that by assuming it, you need to actually PROVE it
>> from the accepted axioms.
>>
>> Since you can't, that just shows your statement isn't TRUE.
>>
>> It is a fact, that it HAS been proved that if you include such a rule
>> in your axioms, that you can get an inconsistent system once you allow
>> certain logical operations to be used, that are needed to support
>> mathemeatics.
>>
>> So, your arguement fails.
>
>