On 5/14/22 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True", yes,
but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it True we can
not use it to actually directly prove something else, but it can be True).

You seem to be saying that the Collatz conjecture can not have a Truth
Value, because it has not been proven, even though it can be proven that
it must be either True of False?

This is where you claim of working only with "Analytic Truth" breaks
down, because you use statement that only apply to analytic truths to
apply to all truths, and thus you actually LIE.

Until you can actually PROVE that statement (that the analytic statement
can not be "True" (refering to Truth in General) then your are just
LYING in your claims and being a Hypocrit, as you claim the only Truths
you can use are Analytically True, and thus Provable, without actually
Proving your statement.
>
> 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.

And you again assume that True -> Provable which it does not.

Note, Tarski specific restricts himself to field that support
Arithmatic, and it has been proven that such a field does NOT support
the concept that True -> Provable without becoming inconsistent.

The fact that you ignore the incosistancies shows you lack of
understanding of logic.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

So what have you done with it? What basic laws of logic have you shown
still hold and which don't?

Have you gotten anywhere near trying to support math under your system?

This is the area that you might be able to make productive work with a
paper, assuming you actually HAVE some new idea that isn't just one of
the old tired theories that either dead ended or created some know
limited logic system.

My first guess is that you haven't studied enough of the work in this
field to even know if your idea is really new, as you keep running into
the same traps that they did a century ago, so you obviously haven't
learned from them. (But of course, they Learned-By-Rote what can't work,
so aren't useful to study).

>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>