On 5/18/2022 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/17/22 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/15/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/15/22 12:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can only be declared as having an unknown truth value.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which means it HAS a truth value of True or False but we don't know
>>> which.
>>>
>>> That is VERY difffernt then it having neither, which is what you have
>>> been claimiing (or at least what your words meant).
>>>
>>
>> Unless and Until a (possibly unknown) connection exists between an
>> expression of language back-chained by sound deductive inference steps
>> to known truth, the expression is not true.
>>
>>> This shows your confusion between Truth and Knowledge.
>>>
>>> Truth is about what actually IS
>>>
>>> Knowledge is about what we know about what is.
>>
>> None-the-less the sequence of inference steps must exist, analytical
>> truth is parasitic.
>>
>
> Absolutely NOT. There does NOT need to be proof that something is true.
>
> IF you want to claim that, by YOUR definition, you need to actually
> PROVE it.
>

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
knowing those meanings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Every analytic expression of language (including math and logic) must be
connected to it meaning showing that it is true OR IT IS NOT TRUE.

Expressions of language that are not connected to their meaning are
meaningless thus neither true nor false.

> And, you can't do that by assuming it, you need to actually PROVE it
> from the accepted axioms.
>
> Since you can't, that just shows your statement isn't TRUE.
>
> It is a fact, that it HAS been proved that if you include such a rule in
> your axioms, that you can get an inconsistent system once you allow
> certain logical operations to be used, that are needed to support
> mathemeatics.
>
> So, your arguement fails.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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