On 2/23/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 11:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 11:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-22 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2022 05:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific poster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post claims
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you were claiming the poster in question was from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Germany. That's like assuming that someone must be from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to conventional wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's that they are simply wrong.  And wrong in very dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> (uninteresting) ways...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was simply wrong then Wittgenstein would not have
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly summed up my view quoted on page 6 of my paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>> Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic,
>>>>>>>>>> the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of language.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein understood these things on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical foundation rather than the learned-by-rote of
>>>>>>>>>> logicians and mathematicians. He understood these things at
>>>>>>>>>> the deepest philosophical level. He was very famous in his day
>>>>>>>>>> for his knowledge of the philosophy of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you think that I am incorrect then you would be able to
>>>>>>>>>> explain the specific error that Wittgenstein made.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone presented with this challenge simply dodges and
>>>>>>>>>> asserts that Wittgenstein did not understand Gödel very well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also on page 7 of my paper is Gödel's own words that claim:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>>> similar undecidability proof." In other words his proof has
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same basis as the liar paradox, that he refers to as
>>>>>>>>>> the "liar antinomy".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I explain that the liar paradox is simply not a "truth bearer"
>>>>>>>>>> because it is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even one of the greatest minds on the subject of the liar
>>>>>>>>>> paradox Saul Kripke did not boil it down to this simple essence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saul Kripke (1975) Outline of a theory of truth
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Kripke%20-%20Outline%20of%20a%20Theory%20of%20Truth.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you mind just can't handle the
>>>>>>>>> complexities of the problem. B
>>>>>>>> Like I said point out the specific error that Wittgenstein made
>>>>>>>> (his view is identical to mine) or admit that you are simply
>>>>>>>> utterly clueless about the deep analysis of these things, you
>>>>>>>> only know them by rote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wittgenstein  is quoted on page 6
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, he is presupposing that True only means provable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His Quote that you highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is not a correct statement.
>>>>>> So then what could 'True in Russell's system' mean ???
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd have to ask Wittgenstein that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd also have to ask him why he felt this had any relevance to
>>>>> Gödel's Theorem since Gödel's paper doesn't use the expression
>>>>> 'True in Russell's System'. In fact, it does not mention or discuss
>>>>> truth at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out to you, the Wittgenstein quote you are so
>>>>> enamoured with was taken from a set of notebooks which were never
>>>>> intended for publication. They were essentially Wittgenstein
>>>>> 'thinking out loud', and contain both worthwhile ideas which he
>>>>> later expanded upon and published as well as half-baked ideas which
>>>>> he clearly came up with before his morning coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll never know how Wittgenstein came to view this particular
>>>>> paragraph if he later revisited it, but there are two things of
>>>>> which we are absolutely certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) We know the comment was written *BEFORE* Wittgenstein had
>>>>> actually read Gödel's paper, so it was based on some second-hand
>>>>> summary of the paper which he had encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) We know that Wittgenstein *DID* eventually read Gödel's paper,
>>>>> and that after reading it he did not make any attempt to publish
>>>>> this 'criticism' of Gödel, nor did he mention it again in any of
>>>>> his known notebooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view on Gödel is totally summed up by Wittgenstein.
>>>> I formed Wittgenstein's complete view long before I ever heard of him.
>>>
>>> You don't know what Wittgenstein 'complete view' actually was. No one
>>> other than Wittgenstein knows this.
>>>
>>
>> Because I formed this same view myself independently of Wittgenstein I
>> can say that his quoted words in my paper form a 100% complete
>> rebuttal that Gödel found a sentence that is both true and unprovable.
>> It is simply unprovable because it is untrue.
>>
>>> What you are really saying is that you formed some view and then
>>> interpreted one of Wittgenstein's remarks in terms of that view.
>>>
>>>> Note that Haskell Curry is quoted before Wittgenstein has a
>>>> comparable notion of what "true in a formal system" means.
>>>>
>>>> Let 𝓣 be such a theory. Then the elementary statements which belong
>>>> to 𝓣 we shall call the elementary theorems of 𝓣; we also say that
>>>> these elementary statements are true for 𝓣. Thus, given 𝓣, an
>>>> elementary theorem is an elementary statement which is true...
>>>>
>>>> Olcott's true in a formal system 𝓣 is exactly Curry's elementary
>>>> theorems of 𝓣 and statements of 𝓣 derived by applying truth
>>>> preserving operations beginning with Curry's elementary theorems of
>>>> 𝓣 as premises.
>>>>
>>>> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
>>>> you always necessarily end up with truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Gödel, since his theorem was
>>> not concerned with truth and made no mention of truth at all.
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> It has everything to do with all undecidable propositions.
>>
>> Undecidable propositions are simply not truth bearers in the same way
>> that the following sentence is neither true nor false: "What time is it?"
>
> Excpet that they are. The Computation H^ applied to <H^> will ALWAYS
> either Halt or Not Halt, and the exact value is determinable for any
> given H if it answers the question H <H^> <H^>.
>
> Thus it IS a Truth Bearer.
>

I had always thought that it behaved like the liar paradox because it
was essentially modeled after the liar paradox. It was only in recent
years that I realized that unlike mathematical propositions that just
sit there, computations have intelligence that can overcome pathological
self-reference.

So in this case you are half right. The halting problem counter-examples
are truth bearers, yet only because they are decidable.

> The WRONG qustion that isn't a Truth Bearer is what answer can H return,
> but that ISN'T the Question of the Halting Problem.
>
>>
>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises known to be
>> true (such as Haskell Curry's elementary theorems) are sound, else
>> unsound.
>
> Which doesn't imply that all Truth is Provable. Is just says that
> everything that is provable is True.

synthetic/empirical truth of the world can be true even when there is no
proof.

Of the analytic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction

expressions of language that are not provable are untrue because the
only way that we know they are true is the connected set of semantic
meanings that prove they are true.

>>
>> All expressions of formal or natural language that apply only truth
>> preserving operations beginning with a set of premises are valid, else
>> invalid.
>>
>> valid reasoning requires conclusions to be a necessary consequence of
>> the premises.
>>
>>
>
> So. That still doesn't prove your point. It also points out the ERROR in
> your whole arguement, because you always start out with an incorrect
> claim, like H applied to <H^> <H^> isn't responsible for the behavior of
> H^ applied to <H^> when that is EXACT what the definition of a Halt
> Decider says it is responsible for.
>
> FAIL.

Every halt decider is a decider. Every decider only maps its inputs to
an accept or reject states. Every decider does not give a rat's ass
about non-inputs. embedded_H does not give a rat's ass about Ĥ applied
to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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