Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about." -- B. L. Whorf


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7905&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7905

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:39:53 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:39:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad> <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
<7oQPJ.70759$H_t7.7988@fx40.iad>
<9YmdnWX9K7pgSZL_nZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com>
<H_QPJ.15490$GjY3.14197@fx01.iad>
<jOWdnb7AeZ7SdZL_nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7cSPJ.37967$iK66.36822@fx46.iad>
<XOqdnVT5ApAbaZL_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CATPJ.37969$iK66.11942@fx46.iad>
<IuCdnYf-XYUHlI3_nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <t3UPJ.18686$d0Y8.5829@fx31.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4sydncDV_OW0j43_nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 379
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-M88bZVBc88mnrTxp4JlCIXIDFXjTgGbAywlb+8k/OIRfvLTKxyUW/2zrZ+bUbR161L3l8QpHCA1yhBx!tH3c+1WFF1GJVsd2GP1LdsOs0g2be+scMXaBH+zHn1Kf3inWtlwMm7cBLTTeh1U0dh+pV7/0uA==
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: 20627
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:39 UTC

On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H" or H will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words' and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single error of substance in my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth can only be something that is proven, and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that try to prove that Truth is only something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no possible middle ground, but these statements have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to determine if an analytical expression of language is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. It is derived by sound deduction that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Formal;
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in
>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say
>>>>>>>>>>>> that a cat is the windows of an office building you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something
>>>>>>>>>>> already defined in the system, especially to something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue
>>>>>>>>>> of their meaning"
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different
>>>>>>> rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
>>>>>>> differently than what you want to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth preserving
>>>>>> operations to premises that are known to be true (sound deductive
>>>>>> inference) on the basis of the semantic relevance that is
>>>>>> maintained in the syllogism:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet still
>>>>>> requires true preserving operations to be applied on the basis of
>>>>>> semantic relevance.
>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
>>>>>> agrees is
>>>>> the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Find, you are on your own.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Things an ignoramus would say:
>>>>> YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the basic
>>>>> principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to discuss it.
>>>> When everything that you learn you learn by only rote understanding
>>>> cannot possibly get any more shallow.
>>>>
>>>> I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct
>>>> reasoning is based.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
>>>
>>> If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
>>> Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless.
>>>
>>
>> Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
>> opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
>
> You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic underpinnings
> peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory peripheral. If you want to
> challenge the definition of Truth used in Formal Logic, you don't work
> in a peripheral field, which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it
> uses, because it has inhereted it from its
>

(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.

When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four of the
above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.

Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

Even the above conventional definition of valid errs.
Here is its correction:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that makes its conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.

Without this correction it permits expressions of language having
nothing to do with each other to specify logical entailment.

cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

SubjectRepliesAuthor
o Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]

By: olcott on Sun, 6 Feb 2022

57olcott
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor