Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Being overloaded is the sign of a true Debian maintainer. -- JHM on #Debian


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 )

<kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8797&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8797

 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 18:21:04 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 18:21:04 -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$Q0Ef.101@fx38.iad>
<vJqdnYm7AZhleOL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X7UfK.5029$tTK.4830@fx97.iad>
<Y72dndEZBuuehB3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IZUfK.44156$qMI1.30042@fx96.iad>
<4vidnRzHA9cxvh3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <SmWfK.5375$x1Wf.3585@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <kbudndAp1Nn8pB3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 345
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4BGI03D/+2msmX+9j7ScW2Sjx9bsgG+BaS9AwikK8dGtqCNGDQeow9vcFmuYhJTp+uw6obLb1HlNFan!knwV7I8cDmf4cXjlUZftvlZwj3xVLpf0/EK4yCuTyQeC2KfdxPpZv10ggFgBUC84OdbDAclUQ0M=
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: 16899
 by: olcott - Sat, 14 May 2022 23:21 UTC

On 5/14/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true
unless and until:
(1) It has been stipulated to be true.

(2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of
language that have been stipulated to be true.
This is the same system that Prolog uses.

The reason that I keep referring to the Tarski proof is it essentially
the exact same proof Gödel after Gödel has been simplified 100,000-fold.
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Tarski simply uses the liar paradox which

Gödel says:
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof

Thus making Tarski's simpler proof equivalent to Gödel's, even though
Tarski's whole proof is only two pages long.

>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>

I started this "new idea" in 1997.

> 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.
>>
>>
>

--
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