Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Your good nature will bring unbounded happiness.


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 )

<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8788&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8788

 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!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:25:12 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 12:25:12 -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>
<gcGdncKir6kKVuL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e_QfK.3463$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 397
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hnvLS9uUF4xmgIht+Bb/m37XDXPRVHkUxfK2Y5lG4YBY4abUzs0WxUqHiRO99WWnTGqzchYY2ynx542!fV5InweulNitXKj3cn8b6QafZrMvtKxRY2TIHaoydKLRj4I+2uRXLd7vvX+GtUdHI0uM6dnCOlQ=
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: 18646
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 17:25 UTC

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.

> 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.

> Thus either the statement "Collatz is True", or "Collatz is False", must
> be true, and there is no known proof or refutation for either, While
> this doesn't prove that no proof exists, it does point out a flaw with
> your statement, until you have actually proved or refuted a statement,
> you don't even know if it could be a truth bearer.
>
> Thus we have a, at least possible, counter-example when you claim none
> exist. You can only refute this as a possible counter-example by actualy
> proving that a proof or refutation actually exists.
>
>>
>>> 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)
>
> Except then it points out that you erroeous omit it in your other
> statements.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> That is part of your error. Math and Logic use analytical methods to
> prove its ideas, but not all Truth in math and logic is 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.
>
> Truth doesn't need to be "Verified" to be True. It only needs to be
> verified before its Truth can be used to create other Truths in a Proof.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Thus, the circular definition.
>
> You only show that ANALYTIC Truth must be proven, not Truth.
>
> Analytics accept that not all Truth is Analytically proven. You make a
> category error assuming all Truth must be Analytically True.
>
> Note, An Analytical Statement might be True but not Analytically ture.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Nope. Give the NON-CIRCULAR proof.
>
> Your failure to show what you claim is evidence that you don't actually
> have a real proof.
>
> Your statement that "Something is True only if it is Provable" is itself
> a contradiction unless you can ACTUALLY prove it, and until you do, you
> can not use it.
>
> Without such a proof, the statement says it can not be true, so you can
> not use 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
>>
>>
>
> And Prolog doesn't define logic, but is just a programming languge to
> handle simple rule sets.
>
> Note, Prolog doesn't provide a well implemented "Not" operator, in part
> BECAUSE it defines a statement that is unprovable as false.
>
> If you want to limit your logic to what Prolog can handle, be my guess,
> but then stay out of things beyond its capability, like Compuation Theory.
>
> I don't think you are smart enough to understand the limitation of
> Prolog (or even simple logic) and thus make enormous errors not
> understanding the limited domain of your tools.
>
> You just don't see that you logic system has become horribly
> inconsistent because you close your eyes to those errors and say that
> logic must be wrong, but you can't actually define WHAT is wrong with
> the logic, because it actually does follow the rules you propose.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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