Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Security check: INTRUDER ALERT!


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ Wittgenstein and I ]( Prolog backchaining )

<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8784&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8784

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.lang.prolog
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 10:32:39 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 10:32:39 -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>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <2tPfK.223$hAre.146@fx08.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 309
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iNXPZPC9c85szqAW5t1qolJuJLlD+SRNhjI9KwI/unF7rBtgNMwOvJ960ki/cdXUK+NQd7PgNGXF/zr!wC5nkjgRiNFgqpalCIy3c1wHXuR+I69L/jOWZanVcQIdlHPLdlMcbVLzMVlYB4RQfQDwwxDwEHY=
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: 14500
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 15:32 UTC

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.

> If needs to be taken as an assumption, it is not something that IS
> unconditionally true.
>
>>
>> There are only two possible ways that any ANALYTICALLY expression of
>> language can possibly be true:
>> (1) It is stipulated to be true. // like an axiom
>> (2) It is derived by applying only truth preserving operations to (1)
>> or the consequences of (2).         // like sound deduction
>
> WRONG.
>
> There are only two possible ways that they can be ANALYTICALLY true.
>

Should I capitalize my use of ANALYTICALLY too so that you can see that
I already specified this? (I capitalized it, above)

>>
>> Analytic truth includes every expression of language that can be
>> completely verified as totally true entirely on the basis of its
>> meaning without requiring any sense data from the sense organs.
>
> And there are other truths besides Analytic Truth. That is implied by
> the need of the adjective.

All of math and logic is exclusively ANALYTICAL.

>>
>> Empirical expressions of language also require sense data from the
>> sense organs to verify their truth.
>
> Nope, things can be empirically true even without the sense data.
> Without the sense data they are not KNOWN to be true, but might be.
>

to verify their truth.
to verify their truth.
to verify their truth.

>>
>> This means that if there are no connected set of semantics meanings
>> (sound deduction) that make an analytical expression of language true
>> then then it cannot possibly be true unless it was stipulated as true.
>
> WRONG. You are again confalating KNOWLEDGE with TRUTH.

Counter-examples are categorically impossible because ALL ANALYTIC
expressions of language ONLY derive their truth value from semantic
connections to other ANALYTIC expressions of language that are known to
be true, AKA sound deduction.

>>
>> The conclusion of Wittgenstein's analysis and mind is that if G is
>> unprovable in F then G is simply untrue in F.
>> Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)).
>
> WRONG.
>
> Makes the erroneous assumption that Truth requires proof, and becomes a
> circular argument.

It is not a circle it is a tree of sound deduction.
The conclusion is linked backwards (sound deduction in reverse) to every
expression of language that derives it.

>
>>
>> Even though F does meet the erroneous mathematical definition of
>> Incomplete(F) that F was ever construed as incomplete is simply
>> incorrect because it does not screen out expressions of language that
>> are simply not truth bearers.
>
> Except that the expression of language WAS a Truth Bearer, as a given
> statement MUST be either Provable or not. This comes because you of
> course can't prove an statement that can't be true, like a non-sense
> sentence.
>

As recently as 1974, people were still clueless about the issue of the
liar paradox.It is the simplest of all self-reference paradoxes so I
bought the domain name liarparadox.org for my work.

Tarski based his whole proof on the liar paradox and proved in his
metatheory that it is not provable in his theory, same result as Godel.

> Unless you are willing to define that Provability isn't a Truth Bearer,
> which since you are then defining Truth as Provable, the Truth of a
> statement isn't a Truth Bearer, you have a problem. You whole logic
> system collapses as it can no longer talk about itself.
>

True(F, x) is implemented as Provable(F, x) through sound deduction on
the basis of premises known to be true. In a reverse sound deduction
(same thing as Prolog back-chaining inference) know truths (AKA Prolog
facts) are sought on the basis of Prolog rules.

https://www.google.com/search?q=prolog+back+chainikng&rlz=1C1GCEJ_enUS813US813&oq=prolog+back+chainikng&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160.4658j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

>
>>
>> Tarski made this same mistake with a much simply yet comparable proof
>> to the Gödel 1931 incompleteness theorem:
>> Tarski undefinability theorem 1936
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>>     "the sentence x which is undecidable in the original theory
>>     becomes a decidable sentence in the enriched theory."
>>
>> It is not that Tarski's metatheory is smarter than his theory.
>> It is that Tarski's x (the liar paradox) is not provable or true in
>> his theory because it is not a truth bearer in his theory in the same
>> way that Gödel's G is not a truth bearer in F.
>>
>>> This make the "appeal" to him as an authority to rebut Godel
>>> incorrect, as he never stood as an authority to make such a claim, he
>>> just investigated it in private notes.
>>>
>>> Perhaps he realized that his argument to try to prove that Truth can
>>> be proven rested on the assumption of a definition that Truth was
>>> Provable and thus is just a circular argument.
>>>
>>> As I have put to you, PROVE that Truth must be Provable, or by your
>>> own logic the statement isn't true. We KNOW (if we have any
>>> intelligence) that there are Truths that we do not know about, so it
>>> is established that some truths are at least unknown for now. What is
>>> the basis for saying that there can't be an aspect that happens to be
>>> true even though we can not prove it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You aseem to be refering to writings published post-humously about
>>>>> a his comments on a paper he hadn't yet actually read, and that he
>>>>> never repeated after actually reading the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that is very good basis for claiming your idea have to be right.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown ZERO understanding for the rules of logic, and that
>>>>> your opinions are basically worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to try to ACTUAL PROVE something, based on REAL
>>>>> ESTABLISHED rules of logic, go ahead and give a try.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, this means NOT just falling back to "the meaning of the
>>>>> words" except when you are actually QUOTING the accepted meaning of
>>>>> those words in the field and showing how they apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if I have ever seen you put together a string of logic
>>>>> more that one or two steps before you go off on a "this must be
>>>>> true" side track, and never actually use any of the fundamental
>>>>> definitions. (You may quotes some of them, but then never actually
>>>>> use that definition in your nest step of the proof).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

SubjectRepliesAuthor
o Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning

By: olcott on Fri, 13 May 2022

67olcott
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor