On 1/6/23 4:24 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:It we want to show that {cats} are {living things}
On 1/6/2023 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 12:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
If there is no finite or infinite sequence of truth preserving >>>>>>>> operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F thenIf G is not provable in F then there is a sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>> preserving
Right, and since the Godel Sentence G says that there does >>>>>>>>>>> not exist a number g that meets a specific primitive
recursive relationship, and we can show that:
0 does not meet that relationship
1 does not meet that relationship
2 does not meet that relationship
...
n does not meet that relationship (from the meta-theory) >>>>>>>>>>> ...
and in the meta-theory we can show that in the theory we >>>>>>>>>>> could continue this sequence forever (from the structure of >>>>>>>>>>> that specific primative recursive relatonship), we thus have >>>>>>>>>>> an INFINITE set of truth persevering operations that show >>>>>>>>>>> that G is True.
Since a Proof is a finite set of truth perserving operations, >>>>>>>>>>> we do not have a proof of G in the Theory, thus, we can say >>>>>>>>>>> that the statement G is True in F, but not Provable in F. >>>>>>>>>>
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F,
otherwise G is not true in F.
No, not being provable and not being True are different things. >>>>>>>>>
there is no
semantic connection in F from G to its truth maker in F, thus G >>>>>>>> is not
true in F.
The statement "G is Not Provable in F" and the statement "G is
True in F" are different statments, so are not based on the same >>>>>>> set of operations.
None-the-less if there is no semantic connection in F from G in F
to its
truth maker in F then G is not true in F.
** From the Truht Makers to the Statement **
You keep saying it backwards, truth FLOWS from the Truth Makers TO
the statements, that is the nature of Truth Perserving. You can't
"preserve" something from a posistion that it hasn't been
established from yet.
and we know that {cats} <are> {animals} and
{animals} <are> {living things} then
{cats} are {living things} must be connected to its truth maker
{cats} <are> {animals} and {animals} <are> {living things}
Prolog calls this back-chaining.
Right, not "BACK" as you are tracing the chain from the END to the
begining.
When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
that make this expression true.
Backward chaining (or backward reasoning) is an inference method
described colloquially as working backward from the goal. It is used
in automated theorem provers, inference engines, proof assistants,
and other artificial intelligence applications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
Right, so you are looking BACKWARDS along the chain that make the
statement true.
When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
that make this expression true.
So what is the difference between the words "semantic connection" and
{Truth Maker}
making up terminology is jsut a sign of being deceptive.
The conclusion {cats} are {living things}
is validated on the basis of the facts
{cats} <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {living things}
that derive it.
Right, so the chain of statements START at the initial Truth Makers,
{cats} <are> {animals}
and
{animals} <are> {living things}
No when the question is:
Is this expression true: {cats} <are> {living things}
Right, so how do you SHOW that.
In the case we are starting with {cats} <are> {living things}
and from this working backwards to its natural language axioms.
Right, but you don't actually SHOW anything until you start with know
ntrue statements and work along the chain of valid logical inferences to reach the conclusion.
On 1/6/23 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:58 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 11:27:00 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:None-the-less if there is no semantic connection in F from G in F to
On 1/6/2023 12:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
If there is no finite or infinite sequence of truth preserving
Right, and since the Godel Sentence G says that there does not >>>>>>>>> exist a number g that meets a specific primitive recursive
relationship, and we can show that:
0 does not meet that relationship
1 does not meet that relationship
2 does not meet that relationship
...
n does not meet that relationship (from the meta-theory)
...
and in the meta-theory we can show that in the theory we could >>>>>>>>> continue this sequence forever (from the structure of that
specific
primative recursive relatonship), we thus have an INFINITE set of >>>>>>>>> truth persevering operations that show that G is True.
Since a Proof is a finite set of truth perserving operations, >>>>>>>>> we do
not have a proof of G in the Theory, thus, we can say that the >>>>>>>>> statement G is True in F, but not Provable in F.
If G is not provable in F then there is a sequence of truth
preserving
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F,
otherwise G
is not true in F.
No, not being provable and not being True are different things.
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F then there >>>>>> is no
semantic connection in F from G to its truth maker in F, thus G is >>>>>> not
true in F.
The statement "G is Not Provable in F" and the statement "G is True in >>>>> F" are different statments, so are not based on the same set of
operations.
its
truth maker in F then G is not true in F.
--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"Also: Truthmaker theory is part of philosophy of language, not
formal logic per se, and you do not even appear to understand it 'as
is'."
I am creating/discovering the elemental nature of analytical truth
itself. This is an overarching idea that applies all all ideas, thus not
limited to any specific subject domain.
When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
that make this expression true.
Which means you have the theory BACKWARDS, as the connections flow FROM
the axioms of the system TO the statement to be decided.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
any.
On 1/6/2023 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:When proving that {cats} <are> {living things}
On 1/6/2023 1:58 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 11:27:00 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:None-the-less if there is no semantic connection in F from G in F
On 1/6/2023 12:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
If there is no finite or infinite sequence of truth preserving
Right, and since the Godel Sentence G says that there does not >>>>>>>>>> exist a number g that meets a specific primitive recursive >>>>>>>>>> relationship, and we can show that:
0 does not meet that relationship
1 does not meet that relationship
2 does not meet that relationship
...
n does not meet that relationship (from the meta-theory)
...
and in the meta-theory we can show that in the theory we could >>>>>>>>>> continue this sequence forever (from the structure of that >>>>>>>>>> specific
primative recursive relatonship), we thus have an INFINITE set of >>>>>>>>>> truth persevering operations that show that G is True.
Since a Proof is a finite set of truth perserving operations, >>>>>>>>>> we do
not have a proof of G in the Theory, thus, we can say that the >>>>>>>>>> statement G is True in F, but not Provable in F.
If G is not provable in F then there is a sequence of truth
preserving
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F,
otherwise G
is not true in F.
No, not being provable and not being True are different things. >>>>>>>>
operations in F that proves that G is not provable in F then
there is no
semantic connection in F from G to its truth maker in F, thus G
is not
true in F.
The statement "G is Not Provable in F" and the statement "G is
True in
F" are different statments, so are not based on the same set of
operations.
to its
truth maker in F then G is not true in F.
--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"Also: Truthmaker theory is part of philosophy of language, not
formal logic per se, and you do not even appear to understand it 'as
is'."
I am creating/discovering the elemental nature of analytical truth
itself. This is an overarching idea that applies all all ideas, thus not >>> limited to any specific subject domain.
When I say {truth maker} I mean the semantic connection from an
analytical expression of language to the key natural language axioms
that make this expression true.
Which means you have the theory BACKWARDS, as the connections flow
FROM the axioms of the system TO the statement to be decided.
and we only know that
{cats} <are> {animals}
{animals} <are> {living things}
we must start with {cats} <are> {living things}
and work backwards, every automated theorem prover works this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey RubardAlmost no one understands that and there are exceptions to this rule. >>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it is not >>>>>> computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the "truth-value" >>>>>>>> of the statements I've made in the thread
1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were the
same."
Dipshit.
--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard
correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or
equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or
formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between
computer programs and mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between
Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the conclusion
to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard >>>>>>>> wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to this
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the "truth-value" >>>>>>>>> of the statements I've made in the thread
1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were the >>>>>>>> same."
Dipshit.
rule.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it is not >>>>>>> computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; >>>>>>> Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard
correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or
equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or
formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship
between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between
Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the conclusion
to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there is no semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard >>>>>>>>> wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to this >>>>>>>> rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
"truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were the >>>>>>>>> same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it is >>>>>>>> not
computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; >>>>>>>> Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing."
In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard >>>>>> correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or
equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or
formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship
between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between
Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE* requires
a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard >>>>>>> correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to this >>>>>>>>> rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
"truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread
1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were >>>>>>>>>> the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it >>>>>>>>> is not
computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing." >>>>>>>
equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or
formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship
between computer programs and mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there is no >>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:In programming language theory and proof theory, the
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, JeffreyAlmost no one understands that and there are exceptions to >>>>>>>>>> this rule.
Rubard wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
"truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were >>>>>>>>>>> the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it >>>>>>>>>> is not
computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can >>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved >>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing." >>>>>>>>
Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard >>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct >>>>>>>> relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from the >>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F.
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure >>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any semantic >>>> meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are
any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be pure >>>>> gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are >>>>> any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so lost. >>>>
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its natural
language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work this way.
Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:In programming language theory and proof theory, the
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey >>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to >>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
"truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were >>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then it >>>>>>>>>>> is not
computable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can >>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved >>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing." >>>>>>>>>
Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard >>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical >>>>>>>>> proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite. >>>>>
is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F. >>>>>
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
to its natural language axioms.
On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there >>>>>> is no
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:In programming language theory and proof theory, the
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved >>>>>>>>>>> computability and 'mathematizability' were not the same thing." >>>>>>>>>>On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to >>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the
"truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability were >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then >>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
computable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can >>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >>>>>>>>>>>
Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard >>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical >>>>>>>>>> proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference
between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from >>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference. >>>>>>>
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be infinite. >>>>>>
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F. >>>>>>
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would notice >>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference
to its natural language axioms.
No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all of
the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
amoundg many other possible meanings.
On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could be
pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any
semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there are >>>>>> any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so
lost.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines work
this way.
Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way
that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
both ways,
On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing >>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the >>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to >>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
computable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can >>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >>>>>>>>>>>>
In programming language theory and proof theory, the
Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard >>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and >>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the >>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and
mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference >>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from >>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference. >>>>>>>>
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise
there is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in F. >>>>>>>
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a >>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained inference >>> to its natural language axioms.
No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all
of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
amoundg many other possible meanings.
A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
this set. I have said this many times.
On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
computable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In programming language theory and proof theory, the
Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard >>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and >>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the >>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and
mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference >>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the >>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from >>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference. >>>>>>>>>
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise
there is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms >>>>>>>> in F.
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would
notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had a >>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE the
same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained
inference
to its natural language axioms.
No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is and
what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or all
of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
amoundg many other possible meanings.
A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
this set. I have said this many times.
Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,
and STILL can't talk
about any concept that is created by the Theory, like Numbers.
On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could >>>>>>>> be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any >>>>>>>> semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if there >>>>>>>> are
any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are so >>>>>>> lost.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
work this way.
Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if the
result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same way >>>> that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds work
both ways,
When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
stop when X is encountered.
And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start with
the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by step you
add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you add the
desired X.
If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
knowledge.
On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could >>>>>>>>> be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any >>>>>>>>> semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if
there are
any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are >>>>>>>> so lost.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines
work this way.
Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if
the result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the same
way
that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds
work both ways,
When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one
could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and
stop when X is encountered.
And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start
with the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by
step you add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you
add the desired X.
If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are on
an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached knowledge.
Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
[facts] then X is not true.
On 1/6/23 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is not
computable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In programming language theory and proof theory, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the
Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the
proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation) is the direct relationship between >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer programs and mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference >>>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference >>>>>>>>>>>> from the conclusion to be proved to its true premises. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained
inference.
Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue. >>>>>>>>>>>
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be >>>>>>>>>>> infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise >>>>>>>>>> there is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms >>>>>>>>>> in F.
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE* >>>>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would >>>>>>>> notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they >>>>>>>> had a
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE
the same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working >>>>>>> in.
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained
inference
to its natural language axioms.
No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is
and what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or
all of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar
Tractor", amoundg many other possible meanings.
A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all >>>> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
this set. I have said this many times.
Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,
Sure we are each GUID represents a single natural language sense meaning
that can be translated into any human language expressive enough to
encode this meaning as a word or phrase.
Nope, that ISN'T Natural Language anymore.
On 1/6/23 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:That is the way that inference works.
Not at all. We start with an expression of language that could >>>>>>>>>> be pure
gibberish with no semantic meaning and work backwards from any >>>>>>>>>> semantic
meaning that it may have to its natural language axioms if >>>>>>>>>> there are
any.
If that is the way you are doing your logic, no wonder you are >>>>>>>>> so lost.
To prove that X is true you look backwards from X to find its
natural language axioms if there are any. All inference engines >>>>>>>> work this way.
Nope, you don't even understand how Back Tracking works.
Yes, SIMPLE inference engines tend to work that way, because if
the result is true, there tends to be fewer paths to trace.
The human mind works by back-chained inference [rules] from an
expression of language to the [facts] that make it true in the
same way
that Prolog uses [rules] and [facts].
Nope, maybe yours only does because it is too simple. REAL minds
work both ways,
When determining if X is true one must start with X, alternatively one >>>> could start with each and every element of the set of all knowledge and >>>> stop when X is encountered.
And when you actaully WRITE a proof, that is what you do. You start
with the NEEDED elements of the set of knowledge, and moving step by
step you add elements to that set of knowledge, until at the end, you
add the desired X.
If you start with X and work backwards, you have no idea if you are
on an actual "Truth" path until ALL its requirements have reached
knowledge.
Not at all. Most of the elements of the set of knowledge are not of the
type that have any connection to X. Back-chained inference is how
inference really works. If there are no [rules] that connect X to
[facts] then X is not true.
Nope, since you haven't actually provided a published proof that works
this way, I am calling you LIAR.
Yes, back tracking is a valid SEARCH methodology to help find what
forward path you want to take.
The problem with back tracking is while only a small percentage of the knowledge would be part of the forward path, unless you are working in a strictly finite logic system (which seems to be the only ones you
understand)
On 1/6/2023 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:That {cats} <are> {living things} is not limited to any theory.
On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
"You can't say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved computability and 'mathematizability' were not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same thing."On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to this rule.
On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
Sure! It's a dumb f'in subterfuge that leaves the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I've made in the thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
"But I already said that mathematics and computability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were the same."
Dipshit.
If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is not
computable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In programming language theory and proof theory, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard >>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and >>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and
mathematical proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don't seem to understand that there is a difference >>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference >>>>>>>>>>> from the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference. >>>>>>>>>>
True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be >>>>>>>>>> infinite.
True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise >>>>>>>>> there is no
semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms >>>>>>>>> in F.
Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE* >>>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ would >>>>>>> notice
that I already made this distinction several times, unless they
had a
neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE
the same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in. >>>>>>
We determine that {cats} <are> {living things} by back-chained
inference
to its natural language axioms.
No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is
and what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or
all of the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar
Tractor", amoundg many other possible meanings.
A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies all
of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning in
this set. I have said this many times.
Then is no longer dealing with Natural Language,
Sure we are each GUID represents a single natural language sense meaning
that can be translated into any human language expressive enough to
encode this meaning as a word or phrase.
and STILL can't talk about any concept that is created by the Theory,
like Numbers.
The knowledge tree has ALL general knowledge about everything.
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is >>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self- referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you cannot is >>> your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self- referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point >>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools. >>>>
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
the statement has a proven Truth Value.
On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" when
the statement has a proven Truth Value.
have a truth value.
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the point >>>> so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible fools. >>>>
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an epistemological
antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies.
Challange:
You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
DO SO.
On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological antinomies. >>>
Challange:
You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
DO SO.
You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to natural language axiom truth makers.
I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
of my primary research.
On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof. >>>
when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
have a truth value.
So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that G
is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction) prove that
G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka an Epistimological Antinomy means.
A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
value is resolved.
On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the >>>>>>> point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible >>>>>>> fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite >>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
proof.
Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
have a truth value.
So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that
G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens
to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction)
prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka
an Epistimological Antinomy means.
A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
value is resolved.
Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has
an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
this other sentence is true.
On 1/6/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" does >>>> have a truth value.
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you >>>>>>>> cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for
the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible >>>>>>>> fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know >>>>>>> what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite >>>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
proof.
Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states that
G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which happens
to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele Contradiction)
prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka
an Epistimological Antinomy means.
A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its truth
value is resolved.
Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has
an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
this other sentence is true.
Which sentence is that?
Only YOUR Claim, which you haven't actually presented any proof.
You are just proving that you don't understand what you are saying.
A statement doesn't become unresolved just because of an UNPROVED
statement that claims that it is unresolved.
On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the
point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible
fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite proof. >>>>
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self-
referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological
antinomies.
Challange:
You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
DO SO.
You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
natural language axiom truth makers.
Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.
The Sentence is question is:
G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific Primative Recursive Relationship>
You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what it actually is) of
"This statement can not be Proven"
So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.
I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
of my primary research.
So, you can;t do it.
Good to know.
When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your feathers.
BLUFF CALLED.
On 1/6/2023 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you
cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for the >>>>>>> point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible >>>>>>> fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know
what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite >>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self- >>>>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any
limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological
antinomies.
Challange:
You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
DO SO.
You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to
natural language axiom truth makers.
Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.
The Sentence is question is:
G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific
Primative Recursive Relationship>
That has never been the question that I have been talking about
this is the one that I have been talking about: G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
When we test the above expression we find that it is not provable in the Prolog formal system: (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what
it actually is) of
"This statement can not be Proven"
"This statement can not be Proven"
Proven about what?
Proven about being proven.
Proven about being proven about what?
Proven about being proven about being proven.
So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.
I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus
of my primary research.
So, you can;t do it.
Good to know.
When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your
feathers.
BLUFF CALLED.
On 1/6/2023 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction"
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you >>>>>>>>> cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for >>>>>>>>> the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to
gullible fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually
know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a
finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite >>>>>>> proof.
Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction"
when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
does
have a truth value.
So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states
that G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which
happens to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele
Contradiction) prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value, aka
an Epistimological Antinomy means.
A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its
truth value is resolved.
Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence has >>> an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy,
this other sentence is true.
Which sentence is that?
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
Only YOUR Claim, which you haven't actually presented any proof.
Complete proof is provided above:
The inner sentence is not true because it is an epistemological antinomy
of the pathological self-reference type making it self contradictory and
thus not a truth bearer.
The outer sentence claims that the inner sentence us not true making the outer sentence true.
You are just proving that you don't understand what you are saying.
I am just proving that you are pretending to not understand what I am
saying.
A statement doesn't become unresolved just because of an UNPROVED
statement that claims that it is unresolved.
The unresolved inner sentence makes the outer sentence resolved.
On 1/7/23 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you >>>>>>>> cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for
the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to gullible >>>>>>>> fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually know >>>>>>> what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a finite >>>>>> number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite
proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link self- >>>>>> referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any >>>>>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological
antinomies.
Challange:
You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
DO SO.
You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to >>>> natural language axiom truth makers.
Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.
The Sentence is question is:
G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific
Primative Recursive Relationship>
That has never been the question that I have been talking about
this is the one that I have been talking about: G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
But it should be, as that is Godel Sentence.
So, you admit to using the Strawman fallicy?
?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
Which is NOT G in F, G in F is what I quoted above.
When we test the above expression we find that it is not provable in
the Prolog formal system: (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4)
So, Prolog can't prove lots of things, because it can only support a
simpler logic system than Mathematcs.
Your failure to understand that shows your stupidity.
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
Right, which actually proves NOTHING.
You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't what
it actually is) of
"This statement can not be Proven"
"This statement can not be Proven"
Proven about what?
Proven about being proven.
Proven about being proven about what?
Proven about being proven about being proven.
So, that isn't a proof, is it,
You clearly don't understand what a proof actually is
So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.
I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus >>>> of my primary research.
So, you can;t do it.
Good to know.
When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your
feathers.
BLUFF CALLED.
Sounds like you folded to the call.
On 1/7/23 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:The sentence that states that G is an "Unresolvable Contradiction" >>>>>> does
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you >>>>>>>>>> cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for >>>>>>>>>> the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to
gullible fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually >>>>>>>>> know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a >>>>>>>> finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite >>>>>>>> proof.
Then why do you claim a sentence has "Unresolvable Contradiction" >>>>>>> when the statement has a proven Truth Value.
have a truth value.
So how does the fact that the sentence "The sentenct that states
that G is an Unresolvable Contradiction" has a truth value (which
happens to be FALSE, since G does NOT have an Unresovlabele
Contradiction) prove that G has an Unresolvable Contradiction.
Apparently you still don't know what a Unresolvable Truth Value,
aka an Epistimological Antinomy means.
A True statement can not be an Epistemological Antinomy, as its
truth value is resolved.
Yet when another different sentence correctly states that a sentence
has
an unresolvable truth value, because it is an epistemological antinomy, >>>> this other sentence is true.
Which sentence is that?
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
But that isn't the sentence being directly used.
So, STRAWMAN FALLACY.
On 1/7/2023 10:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/7/23 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/23 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
That I can stay on topic of epistemological antinomies and you >>>>>>>>> cannot is
your problem and not mine. You keep wanting to drift away for >>>>>>>>> the point
so that it superficially looks like a valid rebuttal to
gullible fools.
Then why do you call a statement proven to be TRUE an
epistemological antinomy? Answer: Because you don't actually
know what that is.
Epistemological antinomies can be recognized and rejected in a
finite
number of steps, thus no need for any infinite logic or infinite >>>>>>> proof.
Prolog correctly determines that there are no [rules] that link
self-
referential Epistemological antinomies to [facts]. This is not any >>>>>>> limitation of Prolog it is the limitation of Epistemological
antinomies.
Challange:
You claim you can prove this in a finite number of steps.
DO SO.
You and Prolog have both agreed that this sentence:
"This sentence is not true" has zero finite of infinite connections to >>>>> natural language axiom truth makers.
Yes, but that isn't the sentnece in question.
The Sentence is question is:
G: There exists no natural number g that satisfies a <specific
Primative Recursive Relationship>
That has never been the question that I have been talking about
this is the one that I have been talking about: G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
But it should be, as that is Godel Sentence.
So, you admit to using the Strawman fallicy?
I have insisted all along that I have only been referring to the
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof.
of Gödel's proof. Perhaps because you have a neurological disorder this
is too difficult for you to keep track of.
?- G = not(provable(F, G)). % G = ¬(F ⊢ G)
Which is NOT G in F, G in F is what I quoted above.
No formal system what-so-ever can correctly resolve any epistemological antinomy that because of pathological self-reference is not a truth
bearer. G = ¬(F ⊢ G) is one of those.
When we test the above expression we find that it is not provable in
the Prolog formal system: (SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 7.6.4) >>>
So, Prolog can't prove lots of things, because it can only support a
simpler logic system than Mathematcs.
Your failure to understand that shows your stupidity.
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
Right, which actually proves NOTHING.
It proves that there cannot possibly be any semantic connection from G
to its truth maker axioms.
You didn't even try to do the "simplificed" version (which isn't
what it actually is) of
"This statement can not be Proven"
"This statement can not be Proven"
Proven about what?
Proven about being proven.
Proven about being proven about what?
Proven about being proven about being proven.
So, that isn't a proof, is it,
You clearly don't understand what a proof actually is
Prolog and I both understand
No formal system what-so-ever can correctly resolve any epistemological antinomy that because of pathological self-reference is not a truth
bearer. G = ¬(F ⊢ G) is one of those.
So, you have done NOTHING, because you know NOTHING.
I have been studying the pathological self-reference sub type of
epistemological antinomies for 25 years. It has been the primary focus >>>>> of my primary research.
So, you can;t do it.
Good to know.
When asked to actually do it, your answer is to just ruffle your
feathers.
BLUFF CALLED.
Sounds like you folded to the call.
That you fail to understand how I and Prolog are both correct is no
failure on my part.
On 1/7/2023 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/7/23 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2023 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Which sentence is that?
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
But that isn't the sentence being directly used.
So, STRAWMAN FALLACY.
None-the-less
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof. (Gödel 1931:43)
shows the when it is used and correctly refuted that this refutation
applies to the original proof because Gödel said they are equivalent.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:17:05 |
| Calls: | 6,661 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,403 |