On 5/14/2022 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
>

OK great this is a key agreement between us.

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

Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is
excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense
organs.

> 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.
>

If it is true then there must be a connected set of semantic meanings
proving that it is true otherwise it is not true.

I don't think that it matters whether or not this connected set can be
found, thus is still would exists even if it took an infinite search to
find.

> 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.
>

I am referring to correct reasoning that differs somewhat from logic.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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