On 5/14/22 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/14/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is)
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you
>> don't have a Proof.
>>
>
> So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology.
> When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not
> exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the
> expression is not true. If the set exists yet is impossible to find then
> it is still true.

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or
expressable?

That means you might not know if you have Proven Something.

>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC?
>
> So that I can correct its mistakes. It has mistakes (incoherence and
> inconsistency) baked right into the definitions of its terms of the art.

So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the
fundamental definitions, you need to be talking about the Core Logic
rules that you think need to be changed, not try to change them in a
derived logic system, when such a change is NOT allowed.

>
>>
>> Formal Logic STARTS with its definition of what is correct reasoning
>> in that Formal System.
>>
>> You can not change that definition without needing to restart at the
>> begining of that Formal System.
>>
>> I have pointed this out many times.
>>
>> If you want to change the ground rules of logic, you need to start at
>> the other end, and begin with a NEW Formal Logic with your new rules.
>>
>
> Same idea as logic, created to correct the errors of logic.

So start with your new logic system and see what you can get to in your
limited time left, Sounds like you have wasted decades of time by
working at the wrong end of the stick.

>
>> People HAVE looked at this idea of inserting the conditon that
>> something is only True if it can be proven, and it greatly limits the
>> power of the logic system, in particular, it can't handle much math.
>>
>> I get the feeling that you haven't really looked at that area, because
>> it seems too much "learn by rote", and says you can't get to where you
>> want to get to.
>>
>
> Logic has mistakes (incoherence and inconsistency) baked right into the
> definitions of its terms of the art. When we contrast logic with correct
> reasoning then we might see that these are mistakes.

So YOU say. Then start at the base and see how far you can get based on
your new idea.

Probably only a few decades of work for someone who knows what they are
doing.

Starting at the wrong end is like trying to stop a mile long freight
train by dragging a bucket out the back of the caboose.

>
>> In short, your ignorance of the past has doomed you to repeat the
>> great mistakes of the past.
>
>