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.

Collatz Conjecture IS either True or False, but it may not be
Analytically True or False until someone can prove or refute it.

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.

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.